From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Ben Clewett <B(dot)Clewett(at)roadrunner(dot)uk(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") |
Date: | 2003-04-17 17:41:35 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0304171506580.1617-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ben Clewett writes:
> I could not work out from the documentation whether it takes a snapshot
> at the start time, or archives data at the time it find's it. The
> documentation (app-pg-dump.html). As the documentation does not clarify
> this very important point, I desided it's not safe to use when the
> system is in use.
>
> Can this command can be used, with users in the system making heavy
> changes, and when takes many hours to complete, does produce a valid and
> consistent backup?
From the pg_dump reference page:
<para>
<application>pg_dump</application> makes consistent backups even if the
database is being used concurrently. <application>pg_dump</application>
does not block other users accessing the database (readers or
writers).
</para>
From the chapter Backup and Restore:
<para>
Dumps created by <application>pg_dump</> are internally consistent,
that is, updates to the database while <application>pg_dump</> is
running will not be in the dump. <application>pg_dump</> does not
block other operations on the database while it is working.
(Exceptions are those operations that need to operate with an
exclusive lock, such as <command>VACUUM FULL</command>.)
</para>
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-04-17 17:45:25 | Re: FE/BE Protocol, Tom? |
Previous Message | Jon Jensen | 2003-04-17 17:38:02 | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") |