| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: Re: Backup and Recovery |
| Date: | 2001-07-06 13:14:03 |
| Message-ID: | 6790.994425243@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> Ideally the archiving
>> process would also discard records from aborted transactions, but I'm
>> not sure how hard that'd be to do.
> Unless we have UNDO we also need to roll forward the physical changes of
> aborted transactions, or later redo records will "sit on a wrong physical image".
Wouldn't it be the same as the case where we *do* have UNDO? How is a
removed tuple different from a tuple that was never there?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-06 13:29:02 | Re: Proper use of select() parameter nfds? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-06 10:52:49 | Re: Re: Backup and Recovery |