I have applied the following patch to document the use of continuous
archiving backups to allow non-simultaneous snapshots.
I don't think we want to go any farther to stop WAL recycling during
back backups.
---
Bruce Momjia
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What I was complaining/suggesting is that we should make what you did to
actually work, because it's a lot simpler. And as Jonah pointed out,
we'd need to inhibit checkpoints between pg_start_backup() and
pg_stop_backup() to make i
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Whether it's a good idea or not is a bit debatable though. I'm
> >> concerned about the WAL partition filling up (--> PANIC),
> >> especially if you forget to pg_stop_backup after getting yo
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Whether it's a good idea or not is a bit debatable though. I'm
>> concerned about the WAL partition filling up (--> PANIC), especially
>> if you forget to pg_stop_backup after getting your backup.
> We check if
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether it's a good idea or not is a bit debatable though. I'm
> concerned about the WAL partition filling up (--> PANIC), especially
> if you forget to pg_stop_backup after getting your backup.
We check if pg_start_backup in effect when we an ENOSPC erro
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I was complaining/suggesting is that we should make what you did to
> actually work, because it's a lot simpler. And as Jonah pointed out,
> we'd need to inhibit checkpoints between pg_start_backup() and
> pg_stop_backup() to make it work.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 08:52:03AM +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> What I was complaining/suggesting is that we should make what you did to
> actually work, because it's a lot simpler. And as Jonah pointed out,
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Checkpoinitng is definitely coolest. If your file system doesn't do
that, rsync is a good poor man's replacement:
first rsync (takes long)
(or work from an older backup)
pg_start_backup(...)
rsync (should be much faster)
rsync WAL
pg_stop_backup()
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 03:03:41PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Incidentally, I looked at this stuff just a couple of days ago, and it
[...]
> Or checkpoint, yes?
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Incidentally, I looked at this stuff just a couple of days ago, and it
occurred to me that we really should make it easier to take a hot backup
with that mechanism. We shouldn't require setting
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
1. call pg_start_backup('foo')
2. tar/etc. the whole data directory, except for pg_xlog
3. tar pg_xlog
4. call pg_stop_backup()
If we just made sure that we don't delete or recycle any WAL files while
the backup is being taken, that would work, right?
When is the bac
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > However, it occurred to me that if someone turned on continuous arciving
> > during the file system snapshots, then you could use PITR to recover
> > from file system snapshots that were not simultaneous.
> >
> > Should this be documented?
>
> If you use continuous a
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Incidentally, I looked at this stuff just a couple of days ago, and it
> occurred to me that we really should make it easier to take a hot backup
> with that mechanism. We shouldn't require setting up archive_command,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Right now it isn't possible to use file system snapshots a reliable
backup if you are using multiple file systems for tablespaces because
most systems don't allow the simultaneous snapshoting of multiple file
system. Our documentation mentions this:
If your database
14 matches
Mail list logo
