Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nMJyrryzq2m0RQQgS7wFM1TE8iADX+9VMgg9=uL=3uruhA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring
from backup
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:44, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> On 10.08.2011 12:29, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 18:07, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09.08.2011 18:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about making the new backup_label field optional? If absent, >>>>>>> assume >>>>>>> current behavior. >>>>> >>>>>> That's how I actually did it in the patch. However, the problem wrt. >>>>>> requiring initdb is not the new field in backup_label, it's the new >>>>>> field in the control file. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah. I think it's too late to be fooling with pg_control for 9.1. >>>>> Just fix it in HEAD. >>>> >>>> Should we add a note to the documentation of pg_basebackup in 9.1 >>>> telling people to take care about the failure case? >>> >>> Something like "Note: if you abort the backup before it's finished, the >>> backup won't be valid" ? That seems pretty obvious to me, hardly worth >>> documenting. >> >> I meant something more along the line of that it looks ok, but may be corrupted. > > Yeah. I'm frankly pretty nervous about shipping 9.1 with this > problem, but note that I don't have a better idea. I'd favor making > pg_basebackup emit a warning or maybe even remove the backup if it's > aborted midway through. I don't understand why we need to change pg_control for this? Why can't we just add a line to backup_label as the first action of pg_basebackup and then updated it the last action to show the backup set is complete? That would be safe for 9.1 -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: