AW: archiving question

From: "Zwettler Markus (OIZ)" <Markus(dot)Zwettler(at)zuerich(dot)ch>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: AW: archiving question
Date: 2019-12-06 09:50:26
Message-ID: 8750e32c2f944480ae9dca5cf1fb2f06@zuerich.ch
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Dezember 2019 02:43
> An: Zwettler Markus (OIZ) <Markus(dot)Zwettler(at)zuerich(dot)ch>
> Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>; pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
> Betreff: Re: archiving question
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 03:04:55PM +0000, Zwettler Markus (OIZ) wrote:
> > What do you mean hear?
> >
> > Afaik, Postgres runs the archive_command per log, means log by log by log.
> >
> > How should we parallelize this?
>
> You can, in theory, skip the archiving for a couple of segments and then do the
> operation at once without the need to patch Postgres.
> --
> Michael

Sorry, I am still confused.

Do you mean I should move (mv * /backup_dir) the whole pg_xlog directory away and move it back (mv /backup_dir/* /pg_xlog) in case of recovery?

Markus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2019-12-06 10:14:00 Re: archiving question
Previous Message Shalini 2019-12-06 09:26:25 Tuple concurrency issue in large objects