From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Richards <miker(at)scifair(dot)acadiau(dot)ca> |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Hot Backup Ability |
Date: | 1999-06-29 23:36:26 |
Message-ID: | 199906292336.TAA02299@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hot backups were added in 6.5.
> Hi.
> I've been mulling around a lot with this idea. I've looked around a bit
> for info on being able to do hot backups on a running database, but there
> isn't a lot of info available. The problem with just pg_dumping the data
> is that it doesn't work well with large databases that are expected to be
> processing transactions during the backup time period.
>
> Dropping postgres down to a select-only lock level on all databases at
> once was my thought. In order to keep the system running hot, you'd have
> to set a flag to say that database is being backed up. My idea is to allow
> a special directory where the deltas are written. IE: Someone inserts a
> record, it would need to write that page to a file in the temp dir for
> both the table, and its indexes. Then, when a select is run, it would have
> to first check the delta table files, then the real indexes for the page
> it's looking for.
>
> This way, you could guarantee that the files being backed up would not be
> altered in any way during the backup, and the deltas would be the only
> overhead. Using the hole in file feature, I think that page changes could
> be added to the file without making to too large, but I've not looked
> closely on how indexes are physically stored to see this. I suppose the NT
> port would require double the size of the database to do this, since I
> don't think winblows supports holes in a file.
>
> With the database in select-only mode, someone could either do a pg_dump
> style backup, or backup the actual tables. I am guessing that it's more of
> a restore time / backup size tradeoff with each backup method.
>
> One reason I am looking at this (a possible 6.6 feature?) is that we are
> using postgresql for a classifieds database which will replace a
> SQL-Server. The database will easily be in the 10's of gigabytes range
> with a few million items. I will of course need to backup this beast
> without preventing the clients from adding things.
>
> If someone can point me in the right direction, I can attempt to make it
> work and submit a pile 'o patches againt 6.5.
>
> Comments?
>
> -Michael
>
>
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1999-06-29 23:56:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Little Suggestion for 6.6 |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-06-29 23:35:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Little Suggestion for 6.6 |