Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: WAL and pg_dump

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Mike C <smith(dot)not(dot)western(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL and pg_dump
Date: 2005-12-23 04:40:37
Message-ID: 15885.1135312837@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> As I recall, the initial backup of our 360GB (or so) database took
> about 6 hours and the restore only took about 2 hours.

Really?  I'd certainly have guessed the opposite (mainly because of
index build time, constraint checking, etc during reload).  Could it
be that compression of the pg_dump output is swamping all else during
the backup phase?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: sandhyaDate: 2005-12-23 05:33:34
Subject: Re: lo_ functions
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-23 04:28:30
Subject: Re: Pgstat.tmp file activity

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group