| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: backup tools ought to ensure created backups are durable |
| Date: | 2016-03-28 01:11:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS=h+5dF3dea1EzsSHB_D23kLhsgS7Lg1jMqs04dSZR6Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> As pointed out in
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160327232509.v5wgac5vskusedin@awork2.anarazel.de
> our backup tools (i.e. pg_basebackup, pg_dump[all]), currently don't
> make any efforts to ensure their output is durable.
>
> I think for backup tools of possibly critical data, that's pretty much
> unaceptable.
Definitely agreed, once a backup/dump has been taken and those
utilities exit, we had better ensure that they are durably on disk.
For pg_basebackup and pg_dump, as everything except pg_dump/plain
require a target directory for the location of the output result, we
really can make things better.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2016-03-28 01:51:02 | Re: Relation extension scalability |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-03-28 00:45:32 | Re: pg_rewind just doesn't fsync *anything*? |