From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Recovery target 'immediate' |
Date: | 2013-04-26 15:35:35 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nML_hy2-OFvD_JKWNtmnXyyQqyRrq8d46GB03HYxukb_kA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26 April 2013 15:38, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Restore points are definitely the way to go here, this is what they
>> were created for. Stopping at a labelled location has a defined
>> meaning for the user, which is much better than just "stop anywhere
>> convenient", which I found so frightening.
>>
>> It should be straightforward to create a restore point with the same
>> name as used in pg_start_backup('text');
>>
>> pg_basebackup backups would need to use a unique key, which is harder
>> to achieve. If we write a WAL record at backup start that would make
>> the starting LSN unique, so we could then use that for the restore
>> point name for that backup.
>>
>> If people want anything else they can request an additional restore
>> point at the end of the backup.
>
> I personally find this to be considerably more error-prone than
> Heikki's suggestion.
Given that I was describing how we might implement Heikki's
suggestion, I find this comment confusing.
Please explain.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-04-26 15:38:51 | Re: Recovery target 'immediate' |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2013-04-26 15:34:01 | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY - for subqueries |