Re: Backup docs

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Backup docs
Date: 2012-06-16 03:18:54
Message-ID: CABUevEz67jYtX=MwM45__6U2vhv1=SDf4Xb3to5xS6iEmt3C=w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> -    The procedure for making a base backup is relatively simple:
>> +    The easiest way to perform a base backup is to use the
>> +    <xref linkend="app-pgbasebackup"> tool. It can create
>> +    a base backup either as regular files or as a tar archive. If more
>> +    flexibility than <xref linkend="app-pgbasebackup"> can provide is
>> +    required, you can also make a base backup using the low level API
>> +    (see <xref linkend="backup-lowlevel-base-backup">).
>> +   </para>
>
> Good start.
>
>> +   <para>
>> +    It is not necessary to be concerned about the amount of time it takes
>> +    to make a base backup. However, if you normally run the
>
> Why not?

This is copied from the old documentation. It used to say "It is not
necessary to be concerned about the amount of time elapsed between
pg_start_backup and the start of the actual backup, nor between the
end of the backup and pg_stop_backup".

And the whole idea was to simplify the text at the beginning ;)

>> +    file, and can ordinarily be ignored.) Once you have safely archived
>> +    the file system backup and the WAL segment files used during the
>> +    backup (as specified in the backup history file), all archived WAL
>> +    segments with names numerically less are no longer needed to recover
>> +    the file system backup and can be deleted. However, you should
>> +    consider keeping several backup sets to be absolutely certain that
>> +    you can recover your data.
>> +   </para>
>
> You're frighting off users when not detailing, I think. How to be

This is copied exactly from what it is today. I'm sure it can be
approved, but it's not the goal of this patch. Let's not let
perfection get in the way of improvement...

> Also I don't see mention of basebackup+wal files all in one with the -x
> option, which I though would have to be addressed here?

It does, it's under "standalone hot backups". The second to last part
of the patch.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2012-06-16 03:20:19 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Run pgindent on 9.2 source tree in preparation for first 9.3
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-06-16 03:11:39 Re: splitting htup.h