On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 15:24 -0700, John Smith wrote:
> Actually, I forgot to mention one more detail in my original post.
> For the table that we're looking to backup, we also want to be able to
> do incremental backups. pg_dump will cause the entire table to be
> dumped out each time it is invoked.
>
> With the pg_{start,stop}_backup approach, incremental backups could be
> implemented by just rsync'ing the data files for example and applying
> the incremental WALs. So if table foo didn't change very much since
> the first backup, we would only need to rsync a small amount of data
> plus the WALs to get an incremental backup for table foo.
>
> Besides picking up data on unwanted tables from the WAL (e.g., bar
> would appear in our recovered database even though we only wanted
> foo), do you see any other problems with this pg_{start,stop}_backup
> approach? Admittedly, it does seem a bit hacky.
You wouldn't be the first to ask to restore only a single table.
I can produce a custom version that does that if you like, though I'm
not sure that feature would be accepted into the main code.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
