From: | Antony Gelberg <antony(dot)gelberg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Stuck trying to backup large database - best practice? |
Date: | 2015-01-12 16:10:56 |
Message-ID: | CADbCqvH51iTfB-017bovzP-yvE7tQHASpBMVfs4DZCgzGo4HrQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
<some snippage>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Adrian Klaver
<adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 01/12/2015 07:20 AM, Antony Gelberg wrote:
>>
>> pg_basebackup: could not get transaction log end position from server:
>> ERROR: requested WAL segment 0000000400002B9F000000B4 has already been
>> removed
>>
>> This attempted backup reached 430GB before failing.
>
>
> It fails because the WAL file it needs has been removed from under it.
>
Okay. We simply understood that it took too long. Clearly we have a
lot to learn about WAL and its intricacies.
>> We were advised on IRC to try -Xs, but that only works with a plain
>> (uncompressed) backup, and as you'll note from above, we don't have
>> enough disk space for this.
>>
>> Is there anything else we can do apart from get a bigger disk (not
>> trivial at the moment)? Any best practice?
>
> What is the purpose of the backup?
>
> In other words do really want the data and the WALs together or do you
> just want the data?
No, we just want to be able to restore our data at a later point. (As
as secondary point, it's not that clear to me why it would be useful
to have both, I'd be interested for some insight.)
Antony
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2015-01-12 16:23:12 | Re: Stuck trying to backup large database - best practice? |
Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2015-01-12 15:31:52 | Re: Stuck trying to backup large database - best practice? |