On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Kevin, > > * Kevin Grittner (kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov) wrote: >> While 1GB granularity would be OK, I doubt it's optimal; I think CRC >> checks for smaller chunks might be worthwhile. My gut feel is that >> somewhere in the 64kB to 1MB range would probably be optimal for us, >> although the "sweet spot" will depend on how the database is used. >> A configurable or self-adjusting size would be cool. > > We have something much better, called WAL. If people want to keep their > backup current, they should use that after getting the base backup up > and working. We don't need to support this for the base backup, imv. > > In any case, it's certainly not something required for an initial > implementation..
While I'm certainly not knocking WAL, it's not difficult to think of cases where being able to incrementally update a backup saves you an awful lot of bandwidth. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
