On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Marco Nenciarini <marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it> wrote: >>> Any comment will be appreciated. In particular I'd appreciate comments >>> on correctness of relnode files detection and LSN extraction code. >> >> I didn't look at it in detail, but one future problem comes to mind: >> Once you implement the server-side code that only sends a file if its >> LSN is higher than the cutoff point that the client gave, you'll have to >> scan the whole file first, to see if there are any blocks with a higher >> LSN. At least until you find the first such block. So with a file-level >> implementation of this sort, you'll have to scan all files twice, in the >> worst case. >> > > It's true. To solve this you have to keep a central maxLSN directory, > but I think it introduces more issues than it solves.
I see that as a worthy optimization on the server side, regardless of whether file or block-level backups are used, since it allows efficient skipping of untouched segments (common for append-only tables). Still, it would be something to do after it works already (ie: it's an optimization) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
