Re: backup tools ought to ensure created backups are durable
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: backup tools ought to ensure created backups are durable |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEwTBLLAxz9V6YAj6v+2WKWW2emBkAmec4vb0=DgGFYzsA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: backup tools ought to ensure created backups are durable (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: backup tools ought to ensure created backups are
durable
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> As pointed out in
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160327232509.v5wgac5vskusedin@awork2.anarazel.de
> our backup tools (i.e. pg_basebackup, pg_dump[all]), currently don't
> make any efforts to ensure their output is durable.
>
> I think for backup tools of possibly critical data, that's pretty much
> unaceptable.
Definitely agreed, once a backup/dump has been taken and those
utilities exit, we had better ensure that they are durably on disk.
For pg_basebackup and pg_dump, as everything except pg_dump/plain
require a target directory for the location of the output result, we
really can make things better.
Definitely agreed on fixing it. But I don't think your summary is right.
pg_basebackup in tar mode can be sent to stdout, does not require a directory. And the same for pg_dump in any mode except for directory. So we can't just drive it off the mode, some more detailed checks are required.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: