> * Tatsuo Ishii (is...@postgresql.org) wrote: >> > * Tatsuo Ishii (is...@postgresql.org) wrote: >> >> Yeah, at first I thought using WAL was a good idea. However I realized >> >> that the problem using WAL is we cannot backup unlogged tables because >> >> they are not written to WAL. >> > >> > Unlogged tables are also nuked on recovery, so I'm not sure why you >> > think an incremental backup would help.. If you're recovering (even >> > from a simple crash), unlogged tables are going to go away. >> >> If my memory serves, unlogged tables are not nuked when PostgeSQL is >> stopped by a planned shutdown (not by crash or by "pg_ctl -m i >> stop"). If PostgreSQL works so, incremental backup should be able to >> recover unlogged tables as well, at least people would expect so IMO. > > Sure, if you shut down PG, rsync the entire thing and then bring it back > up then unlogged tables should work when "backed up".
I don't think using rsync (or tar or whatever general file utils) against TB database for incremental backup is practical. If it's practical, I would never propose my idea. > They're not WAL'd, so expecting them to work when restoring a backup of > a PG that had been running at the time of the backup is folly. Probably you forget about our nice pg_dump tool:-) -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
