|
|||||||||||
|
Re: [GENERAL] "Resurrected" data files - problem?
From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Fri Nov 09 2007 - 17:17:11 EST
Hmm, OK, I do think we can improve on what I said before. What I said was safe though, not nonsense, plus I think the difference between the two is a hair's breadth in practice. Most of the time we're taking about excluding historical data partitions, designed specifically to minimise backup windows and data maintenance. The question is which timestamps do you compare in order to arrive at the maximal set of files that don't need to be backed up twice? I'm assuming we're talking about starting recovery at the second pg_start_backup(). Any file that changes during the first backup cannot be a candidate, so timestamp before first backup must equal timestamp before second backup. So we can effectively reduce things to just 2 timestamps, not 4 as I had originally said. So we have:
pg_start_backup()
...
pg_start_backup() --- WAL chain starts here
timestamp2
Any file for which ts1 == ts2 can be skipped during the incremental backup. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settingsReceived on Fri Nov 9 17:19:36 2007 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 16 2008 - 19:38:31 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||