Re: Documentation Update: Document pg_start_backup checkpoint behavior

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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 06:59:40
Message-ID: 49D7055C.1090101@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> 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.

Good point.

> 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.

If the user is knowledgeable enough to use a smarter backup tool, he's
probably knowledgeable enough to put pg_start_backup('foo', true)
instead of just pg_start_backup('foo') in his scripts. But a new user
who's just playing around and making his first backup, probably using
tar, isn't.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message shrish purohit 2009-04-04 07:36:10 Extension of Thick Indexes
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-04-04 04:13:30 ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT