| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Marc Munro" <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: point in time recovery and moving datafiles online |
| Date: | 2002-02-22 16:06:33 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA41EB51D@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Yes. But I think you might have to avoid "vacuum full" during data file backup.
>
> Why? If vacuum is unsafe in this scenario, wouldn't it also be unsafe
> in event of a system crash?
I was not sure we are 100% crash safe during "vacuum full".
But yes, now recalling your last remark on a crash during vacuum full
I guess we should be.
> I do believe that vacuum should (but presently does not) emit a WAL
> record showing its truncation of the file, so that the equivalent
> truncation can be repeated during replay.
> However, this is needed in any case.
I see, but it has only the effect of not freeing the space to the OS,
so it is not really a bug ? Next vacuum will do it anyway.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-02-22 16:09:48 | Re: [PATCHES] Automatic transactions in psql |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-02-22 15:57:36 | Replication direction |