From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_restore and create FK without verification check |
Date: | 2003-11-27 03:17:23 |
Message-ID: | 19596.1069903043@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> You don't. As I said, any physical backup is going to be
>> all-or-nothing. These techniques are not a replacement for pg_dump.
> But this is just an artifact of the fact that the WAL is a single
> instance-wide entity, rather than a per-database entity. But since
> databases are completely separate entities that cannot be simultaneously
> accessed by any query (corrections welcome), there isn't any reason in
> principle that the WAL files cannot also be created on a per-database
> basis.
WAL is not the bottleneck ... as I already mentioned today, pg_clog (and
more specifically the meaning of transaction IDs) is what really makes a
cluster an indivisible whole at the physical level.
If you want to do separate physical dumps/restores, the answer is to set
up separate clusters (separate postmasters). Not so hard, is it?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-11-27 03:17:51 | Re: Providing anonymous mmap as an option of sharing memory |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2003-11-27 03:10:59 | Re: 7.5 Plans |