| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Per-database warm standby? |
| Date: | 2009-08-14 22:09:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20090814220949.GT7533@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> writes:
> > 8.4 has vastly improved the warm-standby features, but it looks to me like this is still an installation-wide backup, not a per-database backup. That is, if you have (say) a couple hundred databases, and you only want warm-backup on one of them, you can't do it (except using other solutions like Slony). Is that right?
>
> Correct, and that's always going to be true of any WAL-based solution.
Except that we could create a "WAL filter" to restore only relevant
stuff to particular databases ... Would that work? Of course, it would
have to ensure that global objects are also recovered, but we could
simply ignore commands for other databases.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-14 23:21:58 | Re: Scalability in postgres |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-14 22:05:02 | Re: Per-database warm standby? |