Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com>
Cc: Richard Tucker <richt(at)multera(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
Date: 2002-08-09 03:59:00
Message-ID: 27852.1028865540@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"J. R. Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com> writes:
>> Uh, why? Why not just force a checkpoint and remember the exact
>> location of the checkpoint within the current log file?

> If I do a backup with PITR and save it to tape, I need to be able to
> restore it even if my machine is destroyed in a fire, and all the logs
> since the end of a backup are destroyed.

And for your next trick, restore it even if the backup tape itself is
destroyed. C'mon, be a little reasonable here. The backups and the
log archive tapes are *both* critical data in any realistic view of
the world.

> Is the complexity really that big of a problem with this?

Yes, it is. Didn't you just admit to struggling with bugs introduced
by exactly this complexity?? I don't care *how* spiffy the backup
scheme is, if when push comes to shove my backup doesn't restore because
there was a software bug in the backup scheme. In this context there
simply is not any virtue greater than "simple and reliable".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lamar Owen 2002-08-09 05:07:17 Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-09 03:52:36 Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered