Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

From: "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 21:12:20
Message-ID: 1028322744.1264.28.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 16:59, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:

> You don't need it.
> As long as whole block is saved in log on first after
> checkpoint (you made before backup) change to block.

I thought half the point of PITR was to be able to turn off pre-image
logging so you can trade potential recovery time for speed without fear
of data-loss. Didn't we have this discussion before?

How is this any worse than a table scan?

--
J. R. Nield
jrnield(at)usol(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Tucker 2002-08-02 21:20:25 Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
Previous Message Mikheev, Vadim 2002-08-02 20:59:47 Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations