Heikki Linnakangas escribió: > I don't think it's going to work too well, though, not without major > changes at least. What would happen when you restore a PITR backup of just > one database? Would the other databases still be there in the restored > cluster? What state would they be in? After restoring one database, and > doing some stuff on it, could you ever "merge" those changes with the rest > of the cluster?
Well, a PITR slave, after you change it, cannot be brought in sync with the master. This is not different. If you replicate a single database's stream, the other databases should not be there. My idea is that a slave could request multiple databases' streams. The ability to do it is needed anyway, to follow both the basic database stream and the shared stream. > Mind you, there's more things shared between databases than the shared > catalogs. clog for example. Sure --- my original proposal mentioned the use of the shared WAL stream for global objects (though I didn't mention pg_clog, but surely it had better be there). > For more usefulness, we'd need to keep databases more separate from each > other than we do now. Databases would need to have their own transaction > counters, for example. Hmm, why? Perhaps you are right but I don't see the reason. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
