Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

From: "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Richard Tucker <richt(at)multera(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
Date: 2002-08-02 20:45:10
Message-ID: 1028321114.1264.4.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 16:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> "J. R. Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com> writes:
> > The predicate for files we MUST (fuzzy) copy is:
> > File exists at start of backup && File exists at end of backup
>
> Right, which seems to me to negate all these claims about needing a
> (horribly messy) way to read uncommitted system catalog entries, do
> blind reads, etc. What's wrong with just exec'ing tar after having
> done a checkpoint?
>
There is no need to read uncommitted system catalog entries. Just take a
snapshot of the directory to get the OID's. You don't care whether the
get deleted before you get to them, because the log will take care of
that.

> (In particular, I *strongly* object to using the buffer manager at all
> for reading files for backup. That's pretty much guaranteed to blow out
> buffer cache. Use plain OS-level file reads. An OS directory search
> will do fine for finding what you need to read, too.)

How do you get atomic block copies otherwise?

>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
J. R. Nield
jrnield(at)usol(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikheev, Vadim 2002-08-02 20:55:19 Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-02 20:25:06 Re: getpid() function