From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | "'Zeugswetter Andreas SB'" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'Philip Warner'" <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: AW: Backup, restore & pg_dump |
Date: | 2000-10-17 09:36:14 |
Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018D58@SECTORBASE1 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Just to clarify; I have no intention of doing anything nasty to pg_dump.
Oh, ok, it wasn't clear, sorry -:)
>>All I plan to do is rename the pg_restore to one of
>>pg_load/pg_import/pg_undump/pmud_gp, to make way for a WAL based
>>restore utility, although as Bruce suggests, this may be premature.
>
>It is not premature. We will need a WAL based restore for 7.1
>or we imho don't need to enable WAL for 7.1 at all.
I missed your point here - why ?!
New backup/restore is not only result of WAL.
What about recovery & performance?
Hm, WAL is required for distributed transactions
and we are not going to have them in 7.1 - does it
also mean that we don't need to enable WAL in 7.1?
There is WAL - general mechanism for transaction
recovery & performance, alternative (with regard to
non-overwriting storage manager) approach to transaction
systems. And there are WAL based features. Sooner
we'll get base sooner we'll have features.
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew McMillan | 2000-10-17 09:36:32 | Re: Full text indexing (Question/request) |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-10-17 08:47:59 | AW: AW: Backup, restore & pg_dump |