Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

From: Richard Tucker <richt(at)multera(dot)com>
To: "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
Date: 2002-08-07 15:52:01
Message-ID: EKEKLEKKLDAEEKDBDMMAKEJJCDAA.richt@multera.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. R. Nield [mailto:jrnield(at)usol(dot)com]
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 12:58 PM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Tom Lane; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Richard Tucker; PostgreSQL Hacker
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
>
>
> This is great Tom. I will try to get what I have to you, Vadim, and
> other interested parties tonight (Mon), assuming none of my tests fail
> and reveal major bugs. It will do most of the important stuff except
> your changes to the local buffer manager. I just have a few more minor
> tweaks, and I would like to test it a little first.
>
> On your advice I have made it use direct OS calls to copy the files,
> using BLCKSZ aligned read() requests, instead of going through the
> buffer manager for reads. I can think more about the correctness of this
> later, since the rest of the code doesn't depend on which method is
> used.
>
> To Richard Tucker: I think duplicating the WAL files the way you plan is
> not the way I want to do it. I'd rather have a log archiving system be
> used for this. One thing that does need to be done is an interactive
> recovery mode, and as soon as I finish getting my current work out for
> review I'd be glad to have you write it if you want. You'll need to see
> this in order to interface properly.

If you don't duplicate(mirror) the log then in the event you need to restore
a database with roll forward recovery won't the restored database be missing
on average 1/2 a log segments worth of changes?

>
> Regards,
>
> John Nield
>
> On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 22:52, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like a win all around; make PITR easier and temp tables faster.
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > These changes seem very attractive to me even without regard
> for making
> > > the world safer for PITR. I'm willing to volunteer to make
> them happen,
> > > if there are no objections.
> > >
> > > regards, tom lane
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> > pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
> > + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
> > + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
> Pennsylvania 19026
> >
> --
> J. R. Nield
> jrnield(at)usol(dot)com
>
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Manfred Koizar 2002-08-07 16:21:06 OSDB (was: Heap tuple header issues)
Previous Message Joe Conway 2002-08-07 15:51:08 Re: Heap tuple header issues