>> 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.
Yeah, at first I thought using WAL was a good idea. However I realized that the problem using WAL is we cannot backup unlogged tables because they are not written to WAL. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
