| From: | "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb |
| Date: | 2005-06-21 06:31:07 |
| Message-ID: | 00b801c5762a$cf834dc0$0f01a8c0@zaphod |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Another point is that Dave added code to pg_dumpall to not dump the
> postgres database. This seems mistaken to me, so I did not include it
> in the applied patch: if someone is doing real work in postgres then
> they'll be pretty annoyed if it's not backed up. But perhaps the
> question needs debate.
>
> Any thoughts?
You are correct, in my opinion. If one is allowed to add objects to the
"postgres" database, than it must obviously be backuped. Otherwise this is
just another way to shoot yourself in the foot. From an "outsiders" point of
view, the postgres database could just look like roots home directory in
/root,... would you exclude that from backups?
Best Regards,
Michael Paesold
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2005-06-21 07:09:56 | Re: [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb |
| Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2005-06-21 05:43:57 | Re: [PATCHES] O_DIRECT for WAL writes |