On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:40 AM, rakeshkumar464 <rakeshkumar464@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > basebackup + WAL archive lets you do just exactly this. ..... > Yes John I do know about using WAL archive. IMO that will not be as fast as > restoring using the incremental backup. That's an opinion, have you tried measuring? Because normally I've found that 1.- Incremental backups are slow and impose a greater runtime penalty on the system than log-change-archiving methods. 2.- Incremental restores are not that fast. > Eg: > It is common to take a full backup on weekends and incremental on > weeknights. If we have to restore > upto Thu afternoon, which one do you think will be faster :- > > 1 - Restore from basebackup. > 2 - Restore from wed night backup > 3 - Apply WAL logs after wed night backup until the time we want to restore. You are assuming your backup product does direct-diff to base. Those are gonna be costly when friday arrives. > vs > 1 - Restore from basebackup > 2 - Apply WAL logs from weekend until the time we want to restore. > If first choice is lot faster in Oracle,DB2, Is it really testable / a lot faster ? ( bear in mind if a product just supports one strategy there is a huge interest in telling it is the faster one ) > I have reasons to believe that > the same should be true for PG also. But as someone explained, the PG > technology can not support this. I fear incremental backup capabilities will make postgres slower. Anyway, with base backup + wal archive you always have the option of making incremental. Just start a recovery on the backup each time you receive a wal segment wal and you are done. In fact, you can treat a replication slave as a very low lag backup. Francisco Olarte. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
