On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:39 PM, 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. > > 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.
How does replication handle that? Because I doubt that's an issue only with backups. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
