From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> |
Cc: | Imre Oolberg <imre(at)auul(dot)pri(dot)ee>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: pg v. 8.4.5 misses objects and data after restoring from backup using wal |
Date: | 2011-01-03 18:42:32 |
Message-ID: | 22500.1294080152@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> writes:
> On Jan 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Imre Oolberg wrote:
>> But http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/interactive/continuous-archiving.html suggests to use tar on rsync and i guess that PostgreSQL recovery with wal files takes care of these inconsistencies that are created during copying filesystem, right?
> Yes, but the database is recovered to the consistent state as of the pg_start_backup command, as I pointed out to you before. Results of transactions that commit after the pg_start_backup command will not be in the backed up database.
That's either incorrect or poorly worded. The only way to get a
consistent, usable database is to replay all the WAL that was generated
between pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup. That will fix up whatever
inconsistencies exist in the base backup fileset. Once you've done
that, you do have the results of transactions that committed after
pg_start_backup (and up to pg_stop_backup). If you haven't done that,
what you have is an inconsistent pile of rather arbitrary bits. The
base backup by itself (without the concurrently-created WAL) is
*useless*.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Ribe | 2011-01-03 18:49:37 | Re: Re: pg v. 8.4.5 misses objects and data after restoring from backup using wal |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-03 18:38:33 | Re: Re: pg v. 8.4.5 misses objects and data after restoring from backup using wal |