| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Richard Tucker <richt(at)multera(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Date: | 2002-08-02 20:01:40 |
| Message-ID: | 14781.1028318500@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"J. R. Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com> writes:
> The predicate for files we MUST (fuzzy) copy is:
> File exists at start of backup && File exists at end of backup
Right, which seems to me to negate all these claims about needing a
(horribly messy) way to read uncommitted system catalog entries, do
blind reads, etc. What's wrong with just exec'ing tar after having
done a checkpoint?
(In particular, I *strongly* object to using the buffer manager at all
for reading files for backup. That's pretty much guaranteed to blow out
buffer cache. Use plain OS-level file reads. An OS directory search
will do fine for finding what you need to read, too.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Copeland | 2002-08-02 20:07:04 | Re: WAL file location |
| Previous Message | J. R. Nield | 2002-08-02 19:27:04 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |