On 03/09/10 18:01, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
On 03/09/10 15:16, Greg Stark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
* We need a smarter way to do pg_start/stop_backup() with this. At the
moment, you can only have one backup running at a time, but we shouldn't
have that limitation with this built-in mechanism.
Well there's no particular reason we couldn't support having multiple
pg_start_backup() pending either. It's just not usually something
people have need so far.
The backup label file makes that hard. There can be only one at a time.
I don't actually see a use-case for streaming multiple concurrent
backups. How many people are going to be able to afford that kind of
load on the master's I/O bandwidth?
It's more a matter of convenience when you're setting up test
environments with small databases or something like that. I don't see
many people regularly using the streaming backup for anything larger
than a few hundred gigabytes anyway. At that point you'll most likely
want to use something more efficient.
Certainly for version 1, it would be sufficient to throw an error if
someone tries to start a backup while another one is in progress.
*Maybe*, down the road, we'd want to relax it.
Yeah, it's OK for 1st version.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
