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

Re: WAL and pg_dump

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 13:43:47
Message-ID: 20051223134347.GE6026@ns.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> 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?

Sorry, I thought I was being clear (guess not)- I wasn't talking about
using pg_dump but rather PITR and tar/untar.  I was trying to point out
that using PITR and tar/untar can be much, much, much nicer when you
have lots and lots of data to deal with (like a data warehouse would
have...).  Of course, I can also do snapshots with the SAN, but that's a
one-time thing unlike PITR where you can choose any point in time to
recover to.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2005-12-23 14:13:58
Subject: Re: WITH SYSID feature dropped
Previous:From: Donald FraserDate: 2005-12-23 11:57:06
Subject: Re: WITH SYSID feature dropped

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