Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tvFU0-002l1B-Id for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:58:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tvFTz-001MbP-A1 for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:58:47 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tvFTy-001Mb4-Vb for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:58:46 +0000 Received: from mail-ed1-x534.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::534]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tvFTx-0008AL-1A for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:58:46 +0000 Received: by mail-ed1-x534.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5e66407963fso1330392a12.2 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 05:58:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1742475524; x=1743080324; darn=lists.postgresql.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fpxb8TeTmRrW6SljgIjnHSWPVOG7T9h+2HOM9yf2b0E=; b=Nyhw31q4fvHlIs/Zy/d0qWRUtcLR2WYr+AR+HaGx3IKhWA6kgiYhSP/6Q4JoElHJyE qmSzEbVgE8FPPUf0hJ83XaHIiYFV9w46CMd4gxld/fnf7306mCLDdXH6WChcP2mEuYNv 3NHZ6bkaidXUuBIdqLGjqfQ+kFWfb3u2T2Co8pLAH9gMXH396k+vyTuGsskYzi4r6yC7 zNYYP+QEOchMqtn4m/RMMBsNDx6ftrHLs5N+wOYdBTfqYib5vkYt9gm/oQqVqSWw5Zs+ l9gYp8eS32T5JZGg69Ll53uP+ZMDrFq/VQPcpuXvOzhIQMTwa0p8KgRMQttb17XjePCO rCQA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1742475524; x=1743080324; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=fpxb8TeTmRrW6SljgIjnHSWPVOG7T9h+2HOM9yf2b0E=; b=XdEX5iS82mZ9LOVpj7qxoQzBDQ+QVcMKBXdhmP55dplA5/FoDO8wwuFv2lEykzDmai XwOH3/DOWub/5Ae82m+mNAjl7YsiWOsZVXgz8CJAjJLUQbysz4me31yTSpEB98jLiGIe zcPesXbWIerc3yHYbJxMo8C7m26esWDqDnt5f0Su+CF9nDs0uWggsvvTlIEEQpzGlhiW CXdCcGNBugmY/+IRJzCro9tiuG91ZVwtsJJcUQfwZou03MVrWt/lRsqpZ8NJI4cqtbQo f022Vws4CE3RTqU2Br58TzxCBSJrd2qprzZ10zBS9JPIwJtSEtCjsoIX/WxDNEiAr1g6 SoEw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyi7kU/O9fF7AxTPcqokhBxHQdQpSBeTym/WkBFb8/wSah4AaSz Ykf/BpWIqo9LdVBwEUX34SSybU0eX8K4RTFOIiPnJqZyPq/aavVv6niixBzOB2/v9PeXdYrnjQS /01P8ge09R0x6x1DxzTZLOpICgmV7Zm2e X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsV/nbEAkdtJbtnT/3tY87WV0iLDrIf1siPMNplAQE1cI4z2R3KokQZSzT+2Pd +/k3LbLtXn9jNUlCxsdPIijJo/GlaYvloKnBnU8zs1XUyvJNE18+vtpYjjnn1R3aPnPF1MMY9ZG TzqBJB5ogX6a0SS3OGW+6R4/1ObKw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF8XmFZrG2jCUVk2qJOn+tY/1dNR6ysz/zIS1i3qpBMPR66+agfb0Vgk453I9CyXkqPs+5F6TFOCpOvbcvnwfc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:3490:b0:5e7:c42e:3cc0 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5eb9f3d1e36mr3195306a12.9.1742475523420; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 05:58:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Siraj G Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:28:32 +0530 X-Gm-Features: AQ5f1JpcxP_UwwkB-bUifkbDBh1x_zfighbMuNLjdOEGbADDjD60a-8Ziw6EkKw Message-ID: Subject: Re: Export operation efficiency in read replica To: Laurenz Albe Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009a79d30630c5b295" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --0000000000009a79d30630c5b295 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Laurenz As per my understanding coming to a proper conclusion wrt RPO with export operation is challenging. Eg., the export started at x and ended at z, the time stamp here for many data sets is different. Moreover, I do not think there is an incremental way available for export, correct? Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. Although I do agree the primary choice of backup to be storage based, we wanted to have export backups as well as a secondary. Concerning the impact taking export on read only.. Would you think we may run into recovery issues on the replica side or anything that would prevent the operation from being successful? Regards Siraj On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 5:29=E2=80=AFPM Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Thu, 2025-03-20 at 17:22 +0530, Siraj G wrote: > > I have a DB with 1TB in size serving needs of one of our critical > > applications. I have a requirement to take export of the DB on a > > daily basis, but want to carry out this operation in read replica. > > The postgresql version is: 16.6 > > > > What would be the RPO of such backup? > > Depends on the speed of disk and network and on what an RPO is. > > > What would be the impact on the READ REPLICA with a long running > > export operation? > > Potentially severe. > > You could look into storage technologies that allow you to take > a snapshot and clone it. > > Yours, > Laurenz Albe > --0000000000009a79d30630c5b295 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Laurenz

As per my understanding c= oming to a proper conclusion wrt RPO with=C2=A0export operation is challeng= ing. Eg., the export started at x and ended at z, the time stamp here for m= any data sets is different. Moreover, I do not think there is an incrementa= l way available for export, correct?

Please correc= t me if my understanding is wrong.

Although I do a= gree the primary choice of backup to be storage based, we wanted to have ex= port backups as well as a secondary.=C2=A0

Concern= ing the impact taking export on read only.. Would you think we may run into= recovery issues on the replica side or anything that would prevent the ope= ration from being successful?

Regards
Si= raj

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 5:29=E2=80=AFPM Laur= enz Albe <laurenz.albe@cyber= tec.at> wrote:
On Thu, 2025-03-20 at 17:22 +0530, Siraj G wrote:
> I have a DB with 1TB in size serving needs of one of our critical
> applications. I have a requirement to take export of the DB on a
> daily basis, but want to carry out this operation in read replica.
> The postgresql version is:=C2=A016.6
>
> What would be the RPO of such backup?

Depends on the speed of disk and network and on what an RPO is.

> What would be the impact on the READ REPLICA with a long running
> export operation?

Potentially severe.

You could look into storage technologies that allow you to take
a snapshot and clone it.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--0000000000009a79d30630c5b295--