Re: Why standby restores some WALs many times from archive?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sergey Burladyan <eshkinkot(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Victor Yagofarov <xnasx(at)yandex(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why standby restores some WALs many times from archive?
Date: 2017-12-31 10:51:21
Message-ID: 20171231105121.GB4109@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:22:37AM +0300, Sergey Burladyan wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Don't be surprised if you get corrupted instances or that you
>> are not able to recover up to a consistent point if you need to roll in
>> a backup.
>
> But only if archive was reboot unexpectedly, am I right?

Or unplugged, which happens quite often because of human mistakes.
Maintaining scripts that do backup and restore require quite a lot of
specialized knowledge. Solutions like barman, WAL-E or pgBackRest, or
even what in-core has with say pg_receivewal are battle-proven and have
hundreds of man-hours behind from many people. I suspect that there are
other gems hidden in your scripts. So be careful.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yugo Nagata 2017-12-31 10:57:13 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views
Previous Message Yugo Nagata 2017-12-31 10:49:57 Re: Fix a Oracle-compatible instr function in the documentation