From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with PITR? |
Date: | 2006-04-17 15:40:30 |
Message-ID: | 1337.1145288430@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Think harder: we are only safe if the first write to a given page after
>> it's mis-copied by the archiver is a full page write. The requirement
>> therefore continues after pg_stop_backup. Unless you want to add
>> infrastructure to keep track for *every page* in the DB of whether it's
>> been fully written since the last backup?
> I am confused. Since we checkpoint during pg_start_backup(), isn't any
> write to a file while the tar backup is going on going to be a full page
> write? And once we pg_stop_backup(), do we need full page writes?
Hm. The case I was concerned about was where a page is never written
to while the backup occurs (thus not triggering any full-page WAL
entry), and then the first post-backup write is partial. However, if
the backup is guaranteed to have captured a non-torn copy of such a page
then there shouldn't be any problem. So if we consider the initial
checkpoint to be a *required part* of pg_start_backup (right now it is
not) then maybe we can get away with this. It needs more eyeballs on it
though ... after having been burnt once by full_page_writes, I'm pretty
shy ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-04-17 15:47:09 | Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with PITR? |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-04-17 15:31:43 | Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with |