| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Any reason to use pg_dumpall on an idle database |
| Date: | 2000-05-26 00:15:27 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0005252114570.80347-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 25 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > > On Thu, 25 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Seems a typical file system backup is fine on an idle database, right?
> > > >
> > > > how do you know its idle, and/or will remain so?
> > >
> > > pg_ctl stop of modification of pg_hba.conf.
> >
> > ack ... why would you want to? *raised eyebrow*
>
> Well, I am not sure. In the book, I say you can use a normal file
> system backup if the database is idle, or use pg_dumpall and backup the
> file it creates. In fact, once you run pg_dumpall, there is no need to
> backup the /data directory except for the few configuration files like
> pg_hba.conf. Does this make sense?
when you mean 'idle', do you mean 'read-only'? else the files in
/data/base/* would be changing, no?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-05-26 00:23:12 | Re: Any reason to use pg_dumpall on an idle database |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-05-26 00:04:05 | Re: Any reason to use pg_dumpall on an idle database |