Re: Postgressql backup/restore question

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, samana srikanth <samanasrikanth(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgressql backup/restore question
Date: 2009-03-05 09:11:39
Message-ID: 1236244299.31880.135.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin


On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 17:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

> This behavior might be all right for an emergency recovery kind of tool,
> but I can't see us considering it a supported feature.

I agree post-recovery cleanup would be required to bring up a fully safe
read-write database. That's one of the reasons my longer term thoughts
are towards running transactions immediately after recovery completes,
for other uses also.

> The larger point though is that I suspect what the OP really is looking
> for is "restore just this one database into my existing cluster, without
> breaking the other databases that are already in it". There is zero
> chance of ever doing that with a WAL-based backup --- transaction ID
> inconsistencies would break it, even without considering the contents
> of shared catalogs.

Agreed.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ray Stell 2009-03-05 13:55:56 Re: standby waiting for what?
Previous Message raf 2009-03-05 00:32:59 Re: getting 'full' names of functions?