| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rick Gigger <rick(at)alpinenetworking(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: incremental backups |
| Date: | 2006-01-31 01:58:12 |
| Message-ID: | 27731.1138672692@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Rick Gigger <rick(at)alpinenetworking(dot)com> writes:
> And here is the real million dollar question. Let's say for some
> reason I don't have the last WAL file I need for my backup to be
> valid. Will it die and tell me it's bad or will it just start up
> with a screwed up data directory?
It'll restore up to the end of the data it has. The only case that's
actually "invalid" is not restoring far enough to cover the time window
that the original base backup was taken over. Otherwise it's just a
situation of restoring up to a particular point in time...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-01-31 02:04:01 | Re: [HACKERS] New project launched : PostgreSQL GUI |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-31 01:50:02 | Re: Insert rate drops as table grows |