Re: Early locking option to parallel backup

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Lucas <lucas75(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Early locking option to parallel backup
Date: 2017-11-06 14:30:16
Message-ID: 20171106143016.GG4628@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Lucas,

* Lucas (lucas75(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> pg_dump was taking more than 24 hours to complete in one of my databases. I
> begin to research alternatives. Parallel backup reduced the backup time to
> little less than a hour, but it failed almost every time because of
> concurrent queries that generated exclusive locks. It is difficult to
> guarantee that my applications will not issue queries such as drop table,
> alter table, truncate table, create index or drop index for a hour. And I
> prefer not to create controls mechanisms to that end if I can work around
> it.

I certainly understand the value of pg_dump-based backups, but have you
considered doing file-based backups? That would avoid the need to do
any in-database locking at all, and would give you the ability to do
PITR too. Further, you could actually restore that backup to another
system and then do a pg_dump there to get a logical representation (and
this would test your physical database backup/restore process too...).

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Юрий Соколов 2017-11-06 14:50:34 Re: Small improvement to compactify_tuples
Previous Message Raúl Marín Rodríguez 2017-11-06 14:28:30 Re: pow support for pgbench