[DOCS] Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition?
I just completed my first online backup and recovery cycle in a test environment. I encountered a minor hiccup at step 8 of the process outlined in the docs in 23.3.3, "Recovering with an On-line Backup": http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/backup-online.html#BACKUP- PITR-RECOVERY A base backup taken from a running postmaster will still include a postmaster.pid file, which will prevent a new postmaster from being able to be started. As a quick fix, a note could be added to item 4 of the recovery process that reads something like the following: Note: If you are recovering to a new cluster and your base backup was taken from a running postmaster, you will need to remove postmaster.pid if it exists in order to start the new postmaster. In reviewing this section of the documentation, though, I'm wondering if it might not be more clearly broken into 3 further subsections. I would suggest: 23.3.3.1 - Inline (or In-place) Recovery 23.3.3.2 - Remote Recovery or Recovery into a New Cluster 23.3.3.3 - Continuous Recovery The "Inline Recovery" section would just be the existing 23.3.3 repurposed. The "Remote/New Cluster Recovery" section would be an edited version of the existing 23.3.3 to eliminate step1 and include the note suggested above. The "Continuous Recovery" section would include details of how to continuously apply WAL files to a separate cluster in order to have a true hot standby system. Thoughts? I'd be happy to draft 23.3.3.2. I'll have to figure out how to implement Simon Riggs's suggestion of a wait-for-files recover_command including a way to interrupt in the event of a need for actual failover-style recovery before I could draft 23.3.3.3, though. -- Thomas F. O'Connell Database Architecture and Programming Co-Founder Sitening, LLC http://www.sitening.com/ 3004 B Poston Avenue Nashville, TN 37203-1314 615-260-0005 (cell) 615-469-5150 (office) 615-469-5151 (fax) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [DOCS] Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition?
"Thomas F. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A base backup taken from a running postmaster will still include a > postmaster.pid file, which will prevent a new postmaster from being > able to be started. Usually not; only if the PID mentioned in the file belongs to an existing process belonging to the postgres userid does Postgres believe that the pidfile is valid. It might be worth mentioning this as you suggest, but I think it's a sufficiently low-probability case that your failure was probably due to something else. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [DOCS] Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition?
On Mar 20, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Thomas F. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: A base backup taken from a running postmaster will still include a postmaster.pid file, which will prevent a new postmaster from being able to be started. Usually not; only if the PID mentioned in the file belongs to an existing process belonging to the postgres userid does Postgres believe that the pidfile is valid. It might be worth mentioning this as you suggest, but I think it's a sufficiently low-probability case that your failure was probably due to something else. My test scenario involved setting up a new cluster on the same machine as the base postgres I was attempting to recover. So you're probably right about the rarity. What about the larger suggested change of breaking that section into three more granular subsections? I could see commentary being slightly more helpful for each. -- Thomas F. O'Connell Database Architecture and Programming Co-Founder Sitening, LLC http://www.sitening.com/ 3004 B Poston Avenue Nashville, TN 37203-1314 615-260-0005 (cell) 615-469-5150 (office) 615-469-5151 (fax) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [DOCS] Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition?
"Thomas F. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What about the larger suggested change of breaking that section into > three more granular subsections? I could see commentary being > slightly more helpful for each. No particular opinion from here. Someone (was it Scott Marlowe?) recently volunteered to draft a complete restructuring of the admin docs --- so it would probably be better to think about this as part of that effort rather than a standalone change. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [DOCS] Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition?
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 17:12, Tom Lane wrote: > "Thomas F. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What about the larger suggested change of breaking that section into > > three more granular subsections? I could see commentary being > > slightly more helpful for each. > > No particular opinion from here. > > Someone (was it Scott Marlowe?) recently volunteered to draft a > complete restructuring of the admin docs --- so it would probably be > better to think about this as part of that effort rather than a > standalone change. That was me, and I'm working on it right now, in the background. If anyone has any input, I'd be glad to hear it. I'm still getting docbooks setup on my laptop and such... ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
