Re: PITR Functional Design v2 for 7.5

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PITR Functional Design v2 for 7.5
Date: 2004-03-10 18:58:04
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D016@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> > To clarify:
> > I'd expect a cluster to be workable, if I
> > - disable VACUUM until backup completed
> > - issue CHECKPOINT
> > - backup clog (CHECKPOINT and backup clog are the "backup checkpoint")
> > - backup all datafiles (which include at least all completed transaction
> > data at checkpoint time)
> > and then
> > - restore datafiles and clog
> > - bring up pgsql.
>
> Why is that a useful approach? You might as well shut down the
> postmaster and do a cold filesystem backup, because you are depending on
> the data files (including clog) not to change after the checkpoint. You
> cannot make such an assumption in a running database.

I think there is a misunderstanding here.

What I think is possible is the following (continuous backup of WAL assumed):
- disable VACUUM
- issue CHECKPOINT "C1"
- backup all files
- reenable VACUUM

- restore files
- adapt pg_control (checkpoint "C1")
- recover WAL until at least end of backup

The db is inconsistent until you recovered all WAL (PITR) that accumulated during
file backup.

I am not sure about clog, isn't clog logged in xlog ?

Andreas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marcelo Carvalho Fernandes 2004-03-10 18:59:24 PANIC on start
Previous Message Thomas Swan 2004-03-10 18:45:13 Re: [GENERAL] Shouldn't B'1' = 1::bit be true?