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
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 |