Tatsuo, * Tatsuo Ishii (is...@postgresql.org) wrote: > I'm thinking of implementing an incremental backup tool for > PostgreSQL. The use case for the tool would be taking a backup of huge > database. For that size of database, pg_dump is too slow, even WAL > archive is too slow/ineffective as well. However even in a TB > database, sometimes actual modified blocks are not that big, may be > even several GB. So if we can backup those modified blocks only, > that would be an effective incremental backup method.
I'm trying to figure out how that's actually different from WAL..? It
sounds like you'd get what you're suggesting with simply increasing the
checkpoint timeout until the WAL stream is something which you can keep
up with. Of course, the downside there is that you'd have to replay
more WAL when recovering.
What about a tool which receives WALs but then "compresses" them across
a longer period of time than the normal checkpointing by simply keeping
in memory the current set of blocks modified and applying each WAL
record against that block in memory as it reads the WAL? It would then
purge that block out using a full-page WAL write at some pre-defined
point, perhaps at the end of the overall backup?
Consider this: connect the WAL-compressor to a PG backend, issue a
'start backup', which the WAL-compressor detects and then starts keeping
track of every block changed in memory, applying the WAL stream of full
page and non-full-page changes to the in memory set, until the 'stop
backup' is called, at which point the WAL-compressor simply dumps all
the records as full page writes into this new WAL stream.
Or perhaps some combination of an 'always running' WAL compressor which
simply reduces the overall size of the WAL stream with coordination
around full backups.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
