Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>>This is silly. Why not just turn archiving on and off?
>>Not quite. I want online backup, but no archiving. Currently, I have to
>>edit postgresql.conf and SIGHUP to "turn on archiving" configuring a
>>(hopefully) writable directory, do the backup, edit postgresql.conf and
>>SIGHUP again. Not too convenient...
> You don't get to count the edit/SIGHUP steps, because those would be the
> same for any other GUC.
That's right, but my proposal would implicitely switch on archiving
while backup is in progress, thus explicitely enabling/disabling
archiving wouldn't be necessary.
> AFAICS you could get the effect by setting up an archive_command script
> sleep 100
> exit 1
> so that the archiver will do nothing.
Doesn't WAL expect the WAL files already archived to be recyclable, so
they could get overwritten in the pg_xlog dir while backup is running?
Additionally, the doc recommends omitting pg_xlog from the file level
backup, so a restart would need the archived wal files, no?
> BTW, I don't actually understand why you want this at all. If you're
> not going to keep a continuing series of WAL files, you don't have any
> PITR capability. What you're proposing seems like a bulky, unportable,
> hard-to-use equivalent of pg_dump. Why not use pg_dump?
Because pg_dump will take too long and create bloated dump files. All I
need is a physical backup for disaster recovery purposes without
bringing down the server.
In my case, I'd expect a DB that uses 114GB on disk to consume 1.4TB
when pg_dumped, too much for the available backup capacity (esp.
compared to net content, about 290GB). See other post "inefficient bytea
escaping" for details.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-05-25 16:48:22|
|Subject: Re: Gborg and pgfoundry|
|Previous:||From: Andreas Pflug||Date: 2006-05-25 16:16:52|
|Subject: Inefficient bytea escaping?|