| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with |
| Date: | 2006-04-14 21:19:24 |
| Message-ID: | 1145049565.7917.1.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2006-04-14 kell 16:40, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> I think we had originally argued that there was no problem anyway
> because the kernel should cause the page write to appear atomic to other
> processes (since we issue it in a single write() command). But that's
> only true if the backup-taker reads in units that are multiples of
> BLCKSZ. If the backup-taker reads, say, 4K at a time then it's
> certainly possible that it gets a later version of the second half of a
> page than it got of the first half. I don't know about you, but I sure
> don't feel comfortable making assumptions at that level about the
> behavior of tar or cpio.
>
> I fear we still have to disable full_page_writes (force it ON) if
> XLogArchivingActive is on. Comments?
Why not just tell the backup-taker to take backups using 8K pages ?
---------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-14 21:31:22 | Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with PITR? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-14 21:04:54 | Re: Practical impediment to supporting multiple SSL libraries |