| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Marc Munro" <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: point in time recovery and moving datafiles online |
| Date: | 2002-02-22 14:32:20 |
| Message-ID: | 16520.1014388340@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> Yes. But I think you might have to avoid "vacuum full" during data file backup.
Why? If vacuum is unsafe in this scenario, wouldn't it also be unsafe
in event of a system crash?
I do believe that vacuum should (but presently does not) emit a WAL
record showing its truncation of the file, so that the equivalent
truncation can be repeated during replay. However, this is needed
in any case --- point-in-time recovery simply means replaying WAL on
a slightly longer timescale than is usual for crash-recovery.
> And you need the whole WAL including the "page images".
Check, you can't compress out the page images.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ola Sundell | 2002-02-22 14:33:15 | Re: how to stop running postgres process |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2002-02-22 14:31:49 | Re: A Replication Idea |