Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2534.1090466948@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery |
Список | pgsql-admin |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > I think we should push the partially complete WAL file to the archive > location before shutdown. ... > When you are running and finally fill up the WAL file it would then > overwrite the one in the archive but I think that is OK. I don't think this can fly at all. Here are some off-the-top-of-the-head objections: 1. We don't have the luxury of spending indefinite amounts of time to do a database shutdown. Commonly we are under a twenty-second sentence of death from init. I don't want to spend the 20 seconds waiting to see if the archiver will manage to push 16MB onto a slow tape drive. Also, if the archiver does fail to push the data in time, it'll likely leave a broken (partial) xlog file in the archive, which would be really bad news if the user then relies on that. 2. What if the archiver process entirely fails to push the file? (Maybe there's not enough disk space, for instance.) In normal operation we'll just retry every so often. We definitely can't do that during shutdown. 3. You're blithely assuming that the archival process can easily provide overwrite semantics for multiple pushes of the same xlog filename. Stop thinking about "cp to some directory" and start thinking "dump to tape" or "burn onto CD" or something like that. We'll be raising the ante considerably if we require the archive_command to deal with this. I think the last one is really the most significant issue. We have to keep the archiver API as simple as possible. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: