Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with PITR?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with PITR? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1337.1145288430@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with PITR? (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with PITR?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: >> Think harder: we are only safe if the first write to a given page after >> it's mis-copied by the archiver is a full page write. The requirement >> therefore continues after pg_stop_backup. Unless you want to add >> infrastructure to keep track for *every page* in the DB of whether it's >> been fully written since the last backup? > I am confused. Since we checkpoint during pg_start_backup(), isn't any > write to a file while the tar backup is going on going to be a full page > write? And once we pg_stop_backup(), do we need full page writes? Hm. The case I was concerned about was where a page is never written to while the backup occurs (thus not triggering any full-page WAL entry), and then the first post-backup write is partial. However, if the backup is guaranteed to have captured a non-torn copy of such a page then there shouldn't be any problem. So if we consider the initial checkpoint to be a *required part* of pg_start_backup (right now it is not) then maybe we can get away with this. It needs more eyeballs on it though ... after having been burnt once by full_page_writes, I'm pretty shy ... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: