Re: Re: Backup and Recovery
От | ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: Backup and Recovery |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20010704044620.A23814@store.zembu.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | AW: Re: Backup and Recovery (Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: Backup and Recovery
Re: Re: Backup and Recovery |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 10:37:57AM +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote: > > > I imagine a daemon extracting redo log entries from WAL segments, > > asynchronously. Mixing redo log entries into the WAL allows the WAL > > to be the only synchronous disk writer in the system, a Good Thing. > > This comes up periodically now. WAL currently already has all the info > that would be needed for redo (it actually has to). The WAL has the information needed to take a binary table image from the checkpoint state to the last committed transaction. IIUC, it is meaningless in relation to a pg_dump image. > All that is missing is a program, that can take a consistent physical > snapshot (as it was after a particular checkpoint) and would replay > the WAL after a restore of such a snapshot. This replay after a > consistent snapshot is probably as simple as making the WAL files > available to the standard startup rollforward (redo) mechanism, that > is already implemented. How would you take a physical snapshot without interrupting database operation? Is a physical/binary snapshot a desirable backup format? People seem to want to be able to restore from ASCII dumps. Also, isn't the WAL format rather bulky to archive hours and hours of? I would expect high-level transaction redo records to be much more compact; mixed into the WAL, such records shouldn't make the WAL grow much faster. Nathan Myers ncm@zembu.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: