From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Optimizing pgsql for read-only access |
Date: | 2003-10-07 04:05:12 |
Message-ID: | 87d6d9elqf.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Steve Lane <slane(at)moyergroup(dot)com> writes:
> Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> writes:
>
> > > Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)fireserve(dot)net> writes:
> > >
> > > This doesn't provide what online backups do, of recovery to the minute of the
> > > crash. And I get nervous having only logical pg_dump output, no backups of the
> > > actual blocks on disk. But is that what everybody does?
> >
> > Gak!! It can never be guaranteed that the "actual blocks on disk"
> > are transactionally consistent. Thus, the pg_dump output is suff-
> > icient.
>
> > Hello all:
> >
> > I'm building a web-based app that is purely a query tool: no data can be
> > added or edited. Postgres is the back end.
What does this have to do with online backups vs pg_dump ?
Please don't follow up to threads with unrelated questions.
In any case you're far more likely to see answers if you post a message
properly as your message won't show up buried inside old threads in people's
mail user agents.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | CSN | 2003-10-07 04:40:17 | Invalid page header in block |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-10-06 23:17:34 | Re: databse design tutorial |