| From: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Markus Schiltknecht" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers list" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Some ideas about Vacuum |
| Date: | 2008-01-16 21:12:39 |
| Message-ID: | 478E7347.90909@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas escribió:
>> For more usefulness, we'd need to keep databases more separate from each
>> other than we do now. Databases would need to have their own transaction
>> counters, for example.
>
> Hmm, why? Perhaps you are right but I don't see the reason.
If each database was stand-alone, you would need only one base backup
and WAL per database to restore, instead of base backup and WAL of the
database, and base backup and WAL of shared stuff. You could backup one
database in cluster, restore it somewhere else, and later copy it back
to the original cluster. You could back up one database at a time, and
restore the whole cluster from the N per-database backups.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-01-16 21:21:44 | Re: Some ideas about Vacuum |
| Previous Message | Michael Omotayo Akinde | 2008-01-16 20:53:40 | Re: VACUUM FULL out of memory |