On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> c) the map is not crash safe by design, because it needs only for >> incremental backup to track what blocks needs to be backuped, not for >> consistency or recovery of the whole cluster, so it's not an heavy cost for >> the whole cluster to maintain it. we could think an option (but it's heavy) >> to write it at every flush on file to have crash-safe map, but I not think >> it's so usefull . I think it's acceptable, and probably it's better to force >> that, to say: "if your db will crash, you need a fullbackup ", > > I am not sure if your this assumption is right/acceptable, how can > we say that in such a case users will be okay to have a fullbackup? > In general, taking fullbackup is very heavy operation and we should > try to avoid such a situation.
Besides, the one taking the backup (ie: script) may not be aware of the need to take a full one. It's a bad design to allow broken backups at all, IMNSHO. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
