| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups |
| Date: | 2011-01-11 23:23:38 |
| Message-ID: | 1294788218.26320.12.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 23:07 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I think keeping the flexibility is important. If it does add an extra
> step I think that's ok once we have pg_basebackup, but it must be
> reasonably *safe*. Corrupt backups from forgetting to exclude a file
> seems not so.
Agreed.
> But if the problem is you forgot to exclude it, can't you just remove
> it at a later time?
If you think you are recovering the primary, and it's really the backup,
then you get corruption. It's too late to remove a file after that
(unless you have a backup of your backup ;) ).
If you think you are restoring a backup, and it's really a primary that
crashed, then you run into one of the two problems that I mentioned
(which are less severe than corruption, but very annoying).
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-11 23:27:40 | SSI patch version 10 |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-01-11 23:07:53 | Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH] |