Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2006-04-14 kell 16:40, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> I think we had originally argued that there was no problem anyway
> because the kernel should cause the page write to appear atomic to other
> processes (since we issue it in a single write() command). But that's
> only true if the backup-taker reads in units that are multiples of
> BLCKSZ. If the backup-taker reads, say, 4K at a time then it's
> certainly possible that it gets a later version of the second half of a
> page than it got of the first half. I don't know about you, but I sure
> don't feel comfortable making assumptions at that level about the
> behavior of tar or cpio.
>
> I fear we still have to disable full_page_writes (force it ON) if
> XLogArchivingActive is on. Comments?
Why not just tell the backup-taker to take backups using 8K pages ?
---------------
Hannu
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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
