| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improving Physical Backup/Restore within the Low Level API |
| Date: | 2023-10-17 19:30:10 |
| Message-ID: | df49dd6b-a06f-3fbb-ebf1-d200b9b4783f@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/17/23 14:28, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 5:21 PM David G. Johnston
> <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> But no, by default, and probably so far as pg_basebackup is concerned, a server crash during backup results in requiring outside intervention in order to get the server to restart.
>
> Others may differ, but I think such a proposal is dead on arrival. As
> Laurenz says, that's just reinventing one of the main problems with
> exclusive backup mode.
I concur -- this proposal resurrects the issues we had with exclusive
backups without solving the issues being debated elsewhere, e.g. torn
reads of pg_control or users removing backup_label when they should not.
Regards,
-David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-10-17 20:02:54 | Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2023-10-17 19:17:47 | Re: The danger of deleting backup_label |