From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, samana srikanth <samanasrikanth(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgressql backup/restore question |
Date: | 2009-03-05 09:11:39 |
Message-ID: | 1236244299.31880.135.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 17:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> This behavior might be all right for an emergency recovery kind of tool,
> but I can't see us considering it a supported feature.
I agree post-recovery cleanup would be required to bring up a fully safe
read-write database. That's one of the reasons my longer term thoughts
are towards running transactions immediately after recovery completes,
for other uses also.
> The larger point though is that I suspect what the OP really is looking
> for is "restore just this one database into my existing cluster, without
> breaking the other databases that are already in it". There is zero
> chance of ever doing that with a WAL-based backup --- transaction ID
> inconsistencies would break it, even without considering the contents
> of shared catalogs.
Agreed.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ray Stell | 2009-03-05 13:55:56 | Re: standby waiting for what? |
Previous Message | raf | 2009-03-05 00:32:59 | Re: getting 'full' names of functions? |