On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > If you have the two technologies, you could teach them to work in > conjunction: you set up WAL replication, and tell the WAL compressor to > prune updates for high-update tables (avoid useless traffic), then use > incremental backup to back these up. This seems like it would have a > lot of moving parts and be rather bug-prone, though.
I don't think it would be worse than storage-manager-level stuff. And though more complex, don't underestimate the pros: lower footprint, better scalability, and you get consistent online backups. That mechanism can also be used to distill a list of modified pages, mind you, instead of hooking into storage-manager stuff. The pro there, is that it wouldn't amplify writes. The con there is that you don't get consistent online backups. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
