Re: Extending BASE_BACKUP in replication protocol: incremental backup and backup format
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Extending BASE_BACKUP in replication protocol: incremental backup and backup format |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEwqof7DeOaFY78nUjHGNVxJ9dtu_qsWMO=U1sc53jU4ww@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Extending BASE_BACKUP in replication protocol: incremental backup and backup format (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Extending BASE_BACKUP in replication protocol:
incremental backup and backup format
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2014-01-14 14:40:46 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:Hm? Rsync's really only safe with --checksum and with that it definitely
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:
>
> > On 2014-01-14 14:12:46 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > Either way - if we can do this in a safe way, it sounds like a good idea.
> > > It would be sort of like rsync, except relying on the fact that we can
> > look
> > > at the LSN and don't have to compare the actual files, right?
> >
> > Which is an advantage, yes. On the other hand, it doesn't fix problems
> > with a subtly broken replica, e.g. after a bug in replay, or disk
> > corruption.
> >
> >
> Right. But neither does rsync, right?
should fix those?
I think we're talking about difference scenarios.
I thought you were talking about a backup taken from a replica, that already has corruption. rsync checksums surely aren't going to help with that?
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: