Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Review of last summer's PITR patch

From: Cott Lang <cott(at)internetstaff(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers-pitr(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Review of last summer's PITR patch
Date: 2004-02-13 00:48:20
Message-ID: 1076633300.4312.214.camel@blackbox (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-pitr
On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 19:41, Tom Lane wrote:

> Anyway, I'm hoping to see some discussion of what to do next and what
> the PITR functionality ought to look like from a user's standpoint.

As previously discussed on general ...

* WAL files archived to a different location instead of recycling.

* The ability to force a WAL log switch to ensure all changes during the
backup are flushed to archived logs and copied.

* Ability to easily apply WAL logs to a standby database. I'd love be
able to take a hot backup of my production database, bring it up on
another computer and keep it a log or two behind production by
continually copying and applying logs to it. 

* Although not PITR, on a related note, having the ability to do
incremental pg_dumps would be a huge boon for those relying on pg_dumps
for backups.

* Oracle 10g's Flashback feature is interesting.  You can roll the
entire database back to a point in time with:

> flashback database to '3:00 pm';

I would have to say it's hardly critical. :)

In response to


pgsql-hackers-pitr by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-02-13 01:14:23
Subject: Re: Review of last summer's PITR patch
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2004-02-12 23:59:43
Subject: Proposals for PITR

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group