Re: Documentation Update: Document pg_start_backup checkpoint behavior

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Renner <michael(dot)renner(at)amd(dot)co(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Documentation Update: Document pg_start_backup checkpoint behavior
Date: 2009-04-04 01:36:05
Message-ID: 28222.1238808965@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Still, I don't much like this solution. I agree with Heikki:
>> let's just fix it.

> Agreed, fixing it is better than trying to document/report odd behavior.

> There was talk about making pg_start_backup do an immediate checkpoint
> but there was some discussion that you wouldn't want an I/O storm from
> pg_start_backup(). However, figuring you are going to do the tar backup
> anyway, the pg_start_backup I/O seems trivial.

The solution Heikki is proposing is to let the user choose immediate
or slow checkpoint. I agree that there's not much point in the latter
if you are using something dumb like tar to take the filesystem backup,
but maybe the user has something smarter that won't cause such a big
I/O storm.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-04-04 03:54:32 Re: Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-04-04 01:09:03 Re: Documentation Update: Document pg_start_backup checkpoint behavior