Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: AW: Re: Backup and Recovery

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: Re: Backup and Recovery
Date: 2001-07-06 13:14:03
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> Ideally the archiving
>> process would also discard records from aborted transactions, but I'm
>> not sure how hard that'd be to do.

> Unless we have UNDO we also need to roll forward the physical changes of 
> aborted transactions, or later redo records will "sit on a wrong physical image".

Wouldn't it be the same as the case where we *do* have UNDO?  How is a
removed tuple different from a tuple that was never there?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-07-06 13:29:02
Subject: Re: Proper use of select() parameter nfds?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-07-06 10:52:49
Subject: Re: Re: Backup and Recovery

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group