Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavel Stehule
Тема Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]
Дата
Msg-id CAFj8pRBC5WutOAvvLy8JvN4NJzmi7xMOSR+ro0spe6uGGK5vUw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения


2017-12-20 21:18 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > So I'm somewhat hesitant to proclaim option 5 as the clear winner, here.
>>
>> I agree.  I think (4) is better.
>
> Can depends on load? For smaller intensive updated databases the 5 can be
> optimal, for large less updated databases the 4 can be better.

It seems to me that the difference is that (4) tracks which pages have
changed in the background, and (5) does it in the foreground.  Why
would we want the latter?

Isn't more effective hold this info in Postgres than in backup sw? Then any backup sw can use this implementation.


--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Bitmap table scan cost per page formula
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Letting plpgsql in on the fun with the new expression eval stuff