From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with PITR? |
Date: | 2006-04-17 19:00:58 |
Message-ID: | 4129.1145300458@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we were to do this, I'd want some more-bulletproof mechanism for
>> forcing full_page_writes on during the backup. We could probably
>> keep a "backup in progress" flag in shared memory, and examine that
>> along with the GUC variable before deciding to omit a full-page write.
> Yes, good point. The setting has to be seen by all backends at the same
> time, so yea, a shared memory variable seems required.
I've applied a patch for this. On reflection, the CHECKPOINT during
pg_start_backup was actually necessary for torn-page safety even without
full_page_writes off. The reason is that the torn-page risk occurs when
we write a page from shared memory, not when we modify it in memory.
Without a CHECKPOINT, a page modified just before pg_start_backup could
be dumped during the backup and then be saved in a torn state, even
though no WAL record for it is emitted anytime during the backup
procedure. So that comment's been wrong all along.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-04-17 19:06:28 | Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with PITR? |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-04-17 17:59:48 | Re: A successor for PQgetssl |