Re: Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition?
От | Thomas F. O'Connell |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2DD8310C-92A3-495D-8AA5-499E6E43B28C@sitening.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition?
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
On Mar 20, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo@sitening.com> writes: >> A base backup taken from a running postmaster will still include a >> postmaster.pid file, which will prevent a new postmaster from being >> able to be started. > > Usually not; only if the PID mentioned in the file belongs to an > existing process belonging to the postgres userid does Postgres > believe > that the pidfile is valid. > > It might be worth mentioning this as you suggest, but I think it's a > sufficiently low-probability case that your failure was probably > due to > something else. My test scenario involved setting up a new cluster on the same machine as the base postgres I was attempting to recover. So you're probably right about the rarity. What about the larger suggested change of breaking that section into three more granular subsections? I could see commentary being slightly more helpful for each. -- Thomas F. O'Connell Database Architecture and Programming Co-Founder Sitening, LLC http://www.sitening.com/ 3004 B Poston Avenue Nashville, TN 37203-1314 615-260-0005 (cell) 615-469-5150 (office) 615-469-5151 (fax)
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: