Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Also, regarding needing to place an archiver command in
pg_start_backup_online, another option would be to depend on the
filesystem backup to copy the WAL files, and just let them pile up in
pg_xlog until pg_stop_backup_online. Of course, that would require a
two-step
On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 17:25 +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I propose to introduce a GUC permanent_archiving or so, to select
whether wal archiving happens permanently or only when a backup is in
progress (i.e. between pg_start_backup
Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's right, but my proposal would implicitely switch on archiving
while backup is in progress, thus explicitely enabling/disabling
archiving wouldn't be necessary.
I'm not sure you can expect that to work. The system is not built
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 17:25 +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote:
Currently, I have to
edit postgresql.conf and SIGHUP to turn on archiving configuring a
(hopefully) writable directory, do the backup, edit postgresql.conf and
SIGHUP again. Not too convenient...
You're doing
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not sure you can expect that to work. The system is not built to
guarantee instantaneous response to mode changes like that.
Um, as long as xlog writing stops immediate recycling when
pg_start_backup is executed everything should
Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not sure you can expect that to work. The system is not built to
guarantee instantaneous response to mode changes like that.
Um, as long as xlog writing stops immediate recycling when
pg_start_backup is executed
Originally I wanted the command to be a string, and archiving to be a
boolean, but Tom wanted a single parameter, and others agreed.
---
Andreas Pflug wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 17:25 +0200, Andreas
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 12:15:34AM +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote:
Jim Nasby wrote:
Another consideration is that you can use rsync to update a
filesystem-level backup, but there's no pg_dump equivalent. On a large
database that can make a sizable difference in the amount of time
required for
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 10:59:37AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
Not sure what the edit commands are offhand, but we would need the
following program:
- edit postgresql.conf
- pg_reload_conf()
- wait 30
- pg_start_backup('blah')
Rather than 'wait 30', ISTM it would be better to just leave
Currently, WAL files will be archived as soon as archive_command is set.
IMHO, this is not desirable if no permanent backup is wanted, but only
scheduled online backup because; it will flood the wal_archive
destination with files that will never be used.
I propose to introduce a GUC
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I propose to introduce a GUC permanent_archiving or so, to select
whether wal archiving happens permanently or only when a backup is in
progress (i.e. between pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup).
This is silly. Why not just turn archiving on and off?
Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I propose to introduce a GUC permanent_archiving or so, to select
whether wal archiving happens permanently or only when a backup is in
progress (i.e. between pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup).
This is silly. Why not just turn
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
This is silly. Why not just turn archiving on and off?
Not quite. I want online backup, but no archiving. Currently, I have to
edit postgresql.conf and SIGHUP to turn on archiving configuring a
(hopefully) writable directory, do the
Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
This is silly. Why not just turn archiving on and off?
Not quite. I want online backup, but no archiving. Currently, I have to
edit postgresql.conf and SIGHUP to turn on archiving configuring a
(hopefully) writable
On May 25, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Andreas Pflug wrote:
BTW, I don't actually understand why you want this at all. If you're
not going to keep a continuing series of WAL files, you don't have
any
PITR capability. What you're proposing seems like a bulky,
unportable,
hard-to-use equivalent of
Jim Nasby wrote:
On May 25, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Andreas Pflug wrote:
BTW, I don't actually understand why you want this at all. If you're
not going to keep a continuing series of WAL files, you don't have any
PITR capability. What you're proposing seems like a bulky, unportable,
hard-to-use
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's right, but my proposal would implicitely switch on archiving
while backup is in progress, thus explicitely enabling/disabling
archiving wouldn't be necessary.
I'm not sure you can expect that to work. The system is not built to
guarantee
17 matches
Mail list logo
