| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | richt(at)multera(dot)com, "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Date: | 2002-08-03 01:07:40 |
| Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E325185E0@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Well, PITR without log archiving could be alternative to
> > pg_dump/pg_restore, but I agreed that it's not the big
> > feature to worry about.
>
> Seems like a pointless "feature" to me. A pg_dump dump serves just
> as well to capture a snapshot --- in fact better, since it's likely
> smaller, definitely more portable, amenable to selective restore, etc.
But pg_restore probably will take longer time than copy data files
back and re-apply log.
> I think we should design the PITR dump to do a good job for PITR,
> not a poor job of both PITR and pg_dump.
As I already said - agreed -:)
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-03 01:12:39 | Re: WAL file location |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-03 00:52:27 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |