From: | Dmitry Panov <dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | harding(dot)ian(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WAL logs multiplexing? |
Date: | 2005-12-28 17:11:44 |
Message-ID: | 1135789904.6858.42.camel@ip6-localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 16:38 +0000, Ian Harding wrote:
> On 12/28/05, Dmitry Panov <dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 11:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Dmitry Panov <dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru> writes:
> > > > Yes, but if the server has crashed earlier the script won't be called
> > > > and if the filesystem can't be recovered the changes will be lost. My
> > > > point is the server should write into both (or more) files at the same
> > > > time.
> > >
> > > As for that, I agree with the other person: a RAID array does that just
> > > fine, and with much higher performance than we could muster.
> > >
> >
> > Please see my reply to the other person. The other place can be on an
> > NFS mounted directory. This is what the Oracle guys do and they know
> > what they are doing (despite the latest release is total crap).
>
> RAID is great for a single box, but this option lets you have
> up-to-the-second PITR capability on a different box, perhaps at
> another site. My boss just asked me to set something like this up and
> the only way to do it at the moment is a replication setup which seems
> overkill for an offline backup.
>
> If this functionality existed, could it obviate the requirement for an
> archive_command in the simple cases where you just wanted the logs
> moved someplace safe (i.e. no intermediate compression or whatever)?
>
This functionality should have nothing to do with logs archiving. Think
of it as of a synchronous copy (or copies) of the pg_xlog directory:
files there are created, modified and removed at the same time. The
archiving is still done with the "archive_command" script which could
write it to a tape or do anything else you want.
This could be a nice feature which would made the "online" backup really
online. And it doesn't harm too, because if you don't need it you just
don't use it.
Best regards,
--
Dmitry O Panov | mailto:dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru
Tula State University | Fidonet: Dmitry Panov, 2:5022/5.13
Dept. of CS & NIT | http://www.tsu.tula.ru/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ted Byers | 2005-12-28 17:12:59 | Final stored procedure question, for now anyway |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-12-28 17:09:25 | Re: Is CREATE TYPE an alias for CREATE DOMAIN? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-28 17:13:08 | Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-28 16:41:25 | Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug) |