Re: Big image tables maintenance

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Big image tables maintenance
Date: 2018-09-17 14:03:29
Message-ID: 20180917140329.GW4184@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-performance

Greetings,

* Scott Ribe (scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com) wrote:
> On 09/17/2018 07:38 AM, still Learner wrote:
> > 3. Taking the backup of 20TB data, is big task. Any more feasible solution other than online backup/pg_dump?
>
> That's an argument for keeping the presumably immutable files on the file system. (There are arguments against as well.)

While I'm not generally against the idea of keeping files on the
filesystem, I'm not sure how that really changes things when it comes to
backup..? If anything, having the files on the filesystem makes backing
things up much more awkward, since you don't have the transactional
guarantees on the filesystem that you do in the database and if you push
the files out but keep the metadata and indexes in the database then you
have to deal with reconsiling the two, in general and particularly when
performing a backup/restore.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-09-17 14:04:05 Re: Segmentation fault postgres 9.6
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2018-09-17 14:01:08 Re: Big image tables maintenance

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fred Habash 2018-09-17 16:22:46 Re: Select count(*) on a 2B Rows Tables Takes ~20 Hours
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2018-09-17 14:01:08 Re: Big image tables maintenance