On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > But why in the world would you want to stop the slave to do it? ISTM
> > we would want to arrange things so that you can copy the slave's files
> > while it continues replicating, just as with a standard base backup.
> You can do that, of course, but my thinking was that people would regard
> the technique as "unsupported", so I added a quick flag as a prototype.
An advantage to being able to stop the server is that you could have one
server processing backups for multiple PostgreSQL clusters by going
through them 1 (or more likely, 2, 4, etc) at a time, essentially
providing N+1 capability.
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-09-20 20:22:47|
|Subject: Re: Phantom Command ID |
|Previous:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-09-20 20:16:38|
|Subject: Re: Release notes|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-09-20 20:26:30|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-09-20 19:56:01|
|Subject: Re: Dynamic linking on AIX|