Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

From: Richard Tucker <richt(at)multera(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Cc: "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
Date: 2002-08-07 15:12:00
Message-ID: EKEKLEKKLDAEEKDBDMMAMEJHCDAA.richt@multera.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 8:06 PM
> To: Mikheev, Vadim
> Cc: richt(at)multera(dot)com; J. R. Nield; Bruce Momjian; PostgreSQL Hacker
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
>
>
> "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> >> It should be sufficient to force a checkpoint when you
> >> start and when you're done --- altering normal operation in between is
> >> a bad design.
>
> > But you have to prevent log files reusing while you copy data files.
>
> No, I don't think so. If you are using PITR then you presumably have
> some process responsible for archiving off log files on a continuous
> basis. The backup process should leave that normal operational behavior
> in place, not muck with it.
You want the log files necessary for recovering the database to be in the
backup copy -- don't you?
>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2002-08-07 15:13:54 Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-07 15:05:54 Re: moving FE->BE encoding conversion