Thread

1. Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

   Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev@sectorbase.com> — 2002-08-03T00:31:04Z

   > >> It should be sufficient to force a checkpoint when you
   > >> start and when you're done --- altering normal operation 
   > in between is
   > >> a bad design.
   > 
   > > But you have to prevent log files reusing while you copy data files.
   > 
   > No, I don't think so.  If you are using PITR then you presumably have
   > some process responsible for archiving off log files on a continuous
   > basis.  The backup process should leave that normal 
   > operational behavior in place, not muck with it.
   
   Well, PITR without log archiving could be alternative to
   pg_dump/pg_restore, but I agreed that it's not the big
   feature to worry about.
   
   Vadim
   
   

2. Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2002-08-03T00:44:27Z

   "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes:
   >> No, I don't think so.  If you are using PITR then you presumably have
   >> some process responsible for archiving off log files on a continuous
   >> basis.  The backup process should leave that normal 
   >> operational behavior in place, not muck with it.
   
   > Well, PITR without log archiving could be alternative to
   > pg_dump/pg_restore, but I agreed that it's not the big
   > feature to worry about.
   
   Seems like a pointless "feature" to me.  A pg_dump dump serves just
   as well to capture a snapshot --- in fact better, since it's likely
   smaller, definitely more portable, amenable to selective restore, etc.
   
   I think we should design the PITR dump to do a good job for PITR,
   not a poor job of both PITR and pg_dump.
   
   			regards, tom lane