On 2014-06-01 00:50:58 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 5/31/14, 9:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >On 2014-02-21 15:14:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > >>On 2/17/14, 7:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >>>But do you really want to keep that snapshot around long enough to > >>>copy the entire database? I bet you don't: if the database is big, > >>>holding back xmin for long enough to copy the whole thing isn't likely > >>>to be fun. > >> > >>I can confirm that this would be epic fail, at least for londiste. It takes > >>about 3 weeks for a new copy of a ~2TB database. There's no way that'd work > >>with one snapshot. (Granted, copy performance in londiste is rather > >>lackluster, but still...) > > > >I'd marked this email as todo: > >If you have such a huge database you can, with logical decoding at > >least, use a basebackup using pg_basebackup or pg_start/stop_backup() > >and roll forwards from that... That'll hopefull make such huge copies > >much faster.
> Just keep in mind that one of the use cases for logical replication is > upgrades. Should still be fine. Make a physical copy; pg_upgrade; catchup via logical rep. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
