| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Masahiko Sawada' <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Enhance traceability of wal_level changes for backup management |
| Date: | 2021-03-12 08:03:40 |
| Message-ID: | 5ab84745-e046-62c4-a74b-d6363525132b@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08.03.21 03:45, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> OK. The basic idea is to enable backup management
> tools to recognize wal_level drop between*snapshots*.
> When you have a snapshot of the cluster at one time and another one
> at different time, with this new parameter, you can see if
> anything that causes discontinuity from the drop happens
> in the middle of the two snapshots without efforts to have a look at the WALs in between.
Is this an actual problem? Changing wal_level requires a restart. Are
users frequently restarting their servers to change wal_level and then
wonder why their backups are misbehaving or incomplete? Why? Just like
fsync is "breaks your database", wal_level might as well be "breaks your
backups". Is it not documented well enough?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-03-12 08:03:48 | RE: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-03-12 07:51:39 | Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 compatibility |