Re: pg_rawdump

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Roberto Mello <roberto(dot)mello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_rawdump
Date: 2010-10-21 14:11:51
Message-ID: 22587.1287670311@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> and break on-disk compatibility just to make it easier to

> If it's inserted in the "special" area, it will not break any
> compatibility.

I'll tell you what I really don't like about this proposal: we discuss
some scheme or other for taking over the "special space" in heap pages
at least once a year. None of them have been particularly compelling
so far, but one may come along that is; especially given that we're now
trying to maintain on-disk compatibility across versions. So I think
the opportunity cost of assigning a use to that space is mighty high.
I don't find this idea important enough to justify foreclosing future
uses for the special space.

The real bottom line is this: if you care enough about your data to
be willing to expend a large amount of effort on manual recovery
attempts, why didn't you have a decent backup scheme in place?
There are way too many scenarios where you'll have no hope of doing
any such manual recovery anyway.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-10-21 14:17:09 Re: Extensions, this time with a patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-10-21 13:57:42 Re: UNION ALL has higher cost than inheritance