On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 01:25:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> Yeah, it might make the situation better than today. But I'm afraid that
> >> many users might get disappointed about that behavior of an incremental
> >> backup after the release...
> >
> > I don't get what do you mean here. Can you elaborate this point?
>
> The proposed version of LSN-based incremental backup has some limitations
> (e.g., every database files need to be read even when there is no modification
> in database since last backup, and which may make the backup time longer than
> users expect) which may disappoint users. So I'm afraid that users who can
> benefit from the feature might be very limited. IOW, I'm just sticking to
> the idea of timestamp-based one :) But I should drop it if the majority in
> the list prefers the LSN-based one even if it has such limitations.
We need numbers on how effective each level of tracking will be. Until
then, the patch can't move forward.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
