| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Date: | 2002-08-02 20:55:19 |
| Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E325185D4@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > The predicate for files we MUST (fuzzy) copy is:
> > File exists at start of backup && File exists at end of backup
>
> Right, which seems to me to negate all these claims about needing a
> (horribly messy) way to read uncommitted system catalog entries, do
> blind reads, etc. What's wrong with just exec'ing tar after having
> done a checkpoint?
Right.
It looks like insert/update/etc ops over local relations are
WAL-logged, and it's Ok (we have to do this).
So, we only have to use shared buffer pool for local (but probably
not for temporary) relations to close this issue, yes? I personally
don't see any performance issues if we do this.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2002-08-02 20:59:47 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Previous Message | J. R. Nield | 2002-08-02 20:45:10 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |