| From: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OK to put temp tablespace on volatile storage or to omit it from backups? |
| Date: | 2013-05-01 16:13:27 |
| Message-ID: | B9E10DDA-F3A9-403B-BBEF-E94F777248FA@thebuild.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Apr 30, 2013, at 8:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Appears to be sheer blather, or at least not tempered by any thoughts
> of whether it'd work in special cases.
As the author of that blog post, I'd go with option (b). :) And that lack of tempering was actually the point.
The point there was that having the tablespace directories disappear shouldn't be considered a normal operational model. (Like, for example, putting a tablespace in a RAM disk.) There's no question that you can patch the database back together if the underlying storage of a tablespace disappears, but that should be thought of as disaster recovery, not as a "oh, third time this week" operation.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof(at)thebuild(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christophe Pettus | 2013-05-01 16:17:43 | Re: OK to put temp tablespace on volatile storage or to omit it from backups? |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-05-01 15:36:52 | Re: Simple SQL INSERT to avoid duplication failed: why? |