From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jun Ishiduka <ishizuka(dot)jun(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca |
Subject: | Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby |
Date: | 2011-08-18 02:12:55 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwGM_sYnaPb56QzZ5AUHQRdm5hujXcp-na5UgqRqpYkpqA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/8/5 Jun Ishiduka <ishizuka(dot)jun(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp>:
> * Procedure
>
> 1. Call pg_start_backup('x') on the standby.
> 2. Take a backup of the data dir.
> 3. Call pg_stop_backup() on the standby.
> 4. Copy the control file on the standby to the backup.
> 5. Check whether the control file is status during hot standby with pg_controldata.
> -> If the standby promote between 3. and 4., the backup can not recovery.
> -> pg_control is that "Minimum recovery ending location" is equals 0/0.
> -> backup-end record is not written.
What if we do #4 before #3? The backup gets corrupted? My guess is
that the backup is still valid even if we copy pg_control before executing
pg_stop_backup(). Which would not require #5 because if the standby
promotion happens before pg_stop_backup(), pg_stop_backup() can
detect that status change and cancel the backup.
#5 looks fragile. If we can get rid of it, the procedure becomes more
robust, I think.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeevan Chalke | 2011-08-18 04:47:41 | Re: Allowing same cursor name in nested levels |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-08-18 01:43:21 | Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby |