Re: AW: Backup, restore & pg_dump

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Zeugswetter Andreas SB'" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'Philip Warner'" <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: Backup, restore & pg_dump
Date: 2000-10-17 09:36:14
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018D58@SECTORBASE1
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> Just to clarify; I have no intention of doing anything nasty to pg_dump.

Oh, ok, it wasn't clear, sorry -:)

>>All I plan to do is rename the pg_restore to one of
>>pg_load/pg_import/pg_undump/pmud_gp, to make way for a WAL based
>>restore utility, although as Bruce suggests, this may be premature.
>
>It is not premature. We will need a WAL based restore for 7.1
>or we imho don't need to enable WAL for 7.1 at all.

I missed your point here - why ?!
New backup/restore is not only result of WAL.
What about recovery & performance?
Hm, WAL is required for distributed transactions
and we are not going to have them in 7.1 - does it
also mean that we don't need to enable WAL in 7.1?

There is WAL - general mechanism for transaction
recovery & performance, alternative (with regard to
non-overwriting storage manager) approach to transaction
systems. And there are WAL based features. Sooner
we'll get base sooner we'll have features.

Vadim

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew McMillan 2000-10-17 09:36:32 Re: Full text indexing (Question/request)
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2000-10-17 08:47:59 AW: AW: Backup, restore & pg_dump