Re: Problems with postgres online backup - restore
От | Gerhard Wiesinger |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Problems with postgres online backup - restore |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.LFD.2.00.0906260624460.24444@bbs.intern обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Problems with postgres online backup - restore (Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Problems with postgres online backup - restore
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Hello, OK, what's then the difference doing a pg_start_backup() or just doing the backup? Isn't that a problem that the datablock are very inconsistent, even so inconsistent that they are corrupt: E.g. A part of a datablock is written when e.g. the file is tarred. => Datablock on backup is corrupt => An then even the WAL can't be applied. Why does it work correctly? Or is there some design problem? Thnx. Ciao, Gerhard -- http://www.wiesinger.com/ On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Richard Huxton wrote: > Gerhard Wiesinger wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'd like to understand the PostgreSQL internals in "backup mode". >> >> When I understood it correctly pg_start_backup() make a checkpoint and >> stops writing to the data/ directory except the WAL. >> >> All new transaction go into WAL which is also logical. But how is data >> consistency done when the written/changed blocks don't fit into the buffer >> cache? > > The data isn't kept consistent. Which is why you need the WAL. Restoring from > a PITR backup is basically the same idea as recovering from a crash. Any > blocks that might have been updated since you called pg_start_backup() will > be rewritten from the WAL. > > -- > Richard Huxton > Archonet Ltd > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: