> > The predicate for files we MUST (fuzzy) copy is: > > File exists at start of backup && File exists at end of backup > > Right, which seems to me to negate all these claims about needing a > (horribly messy) way to read uncommitted system catalog entries, do > blind reads, etc. What's wrong with just exec'ing tar after having > done a checkpoint?
Right. It looks like insert/update/etc ops over local relations are WAL-logged, and it's Ok (we have to do this). So, we only have to use shared buffer pool for local (but probably not for temporary) relations to close this issue, yes? I personally don't see any performance issues if we do this. Vadim ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
