From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <jwieck(at)debis(dot)com> |
Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, bkruger(at)mindspring(dot)com, pgsql-admin(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] Re: [SQL] Data recovery |
Date: | 1999-06-01 19:17:49 |
Message-ID: | 199906011917.PAA04373@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-sql |
> > Very, very hard, but not impossible. If you update a row, and do a
> > select on that row, the select updates the transaction status so the
> > next select doesn't need to look at the pg_log table. What this means
> > is that pg_log could probably be reconstructed from existing data, with
> > just 'unselected' changes not appearing properly.
>
> So at the end you have some data that you cannot trust. I
> don't think that's worth the efford.
Yes. True. It is just a point that came up recently when Tom found the
first select on a table slow.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Moore, Duane | 1999-06-01 20:14:04 | cleaning up backend process after death of CGI process |
Previous Message | Brett W. McCoy | 1999-06-01 19:04:33 | Re: [GENERAL] ' syntax |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pham, Thinh | 1999-06-01 20:25:48 | datetime function |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-06-01 19:01:39 | Re: [ADMIN] Re: [SQL] Data recovery |