| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | richt(at)multera(dot)com, "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(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: | 2002-08-03 00:31:04 |
| Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E325185DE@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >> 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.
Well, PITR without log archiving could be alternative to
pg_dump/pg_restore, but I agreed that it's not the big
feature to worry about.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-03 00:41:06 | Planned simplification of catalog index updates |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-03 00:05:48 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |