| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, richt(at)multera(dot)com, "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Date: | 2002-08-03 00:52:27 |
| Message-ID: | 200208030052.g730qRJ06145@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> >> It should be sufficient to force a checkpoint when you
> >> start and when you're done --- altering normal operation in between is
> >> a bad design.
>
> > But you have to prevent log files reusing while you copy data files.
>
> No, I don't think so. If you are using PITR then you presumably have
> some process responsible for archiving off log files on a continuous
> basis. The backup process should leave that normal operational behavior
> in place, not muck with it.
But what if you normally continuous LOG to tape, and now you want to
backup to tape. You can't use the same tape drive for both operations.
Is that typical? I know sites that had only one tape drive that did
that.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(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 | Mikheev, Vadim | 2002-08-03 01:07:40 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-03 00:50:34 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |