| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Peter Childs <peterachilds(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "Resurrected" data files - problem? |
| Date: | 2007-11-09 15:59:14 |
| Message-ID: | 10794.1194623954@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:28 +0100, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> I think that understanding is finally dawning here.
>>
>> The problem you see is that the backup software might decide
>> that the file has not been changed, skip it and go on backing
>> up other files, but the file can still be modified before
>> pg_stop_backup(), correct?
> Correct.
Surely that's nonsense --- otherwise a time-extended base backup
could not work either.
What is required of the filesystem backup process is that each 8K page
of each file be restored to a state that it had at some time between
pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup. The exact time can be different for
different pages. I don't see a reason to think that a base+incremental
backup method can't meet that requirement.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2007-11-09 16:18:20 | Re: "Resurrected" data files - problem? |
| Previous Message | Raymond O'Donnell | 2007-11-09 15:40:47 | Re: PIPELINED Functions |