Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
Date: 2004-07-22 02:39:15
Message-ID: 2110.1090463955@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz> writes:
> Here is one for the 'idiot proof' category:
> 1) initdb and set archive_command
> 2) shutdown
> 3) do a backup
> 4) startup and run some transactions
> 5) shutdown and remove PGDATA
> 6) restore backup
> 7) startup

> Obviously this does not work as the backup is performed with the
> database shutdown.

Huh? It works fine.

The bit you may be missing is that if you blow away $PGDATA including
pg_xlog/, you won't be able to recover past whatever you have in your WAL
archive area. The archive is certainly not going to include the current
partially-filled WAL segment, and it might be missing a few earlier
segments if the archival process isn't speedy. So you need to keep
those recent segments in pg_xlog/ if you want to recover to current time
or near-current time.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that we should bite the bullet and
move pg_xlog/ to someplace that is not under $PGDATA. It would just
make things a whole lot more reliable, both for backup and to deal with
scenarios like yours above. I tried to talk Bruce into this on the
phone the other day, but he wouldn't bite. I still think it's a good
idea though. It would
(1) eliminate the problem that a tar backup of $PGDATA would restore
stale copies of xlog segments, because the tar wouldn't include
pg_xlog in the first place.
(2) eliminate the problem that a naive "rm -rf $PGDATA" would blow away
xlog segments that you still need.

A possible compromise is that we should strongly suggest that pg_xlog
be pushed out to another place and symlinked if you are going to use
WAL archiving. That's already considered good practice for performance
if you have a separate disk spindle to put WAL on. It'll just have
to be good practive for WAL archiving too.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-22 03:06:22 Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2004-07-22 01:51:04 Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-22 03:06:22 Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-07-22 02:14:24 Re: Sorting out acl fixes

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-22 03:06:22 Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-22 02:33:40 Re: autovacuum integration attempt #3