Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

> > The predicate for files we MUST (fuzzy) copy is: 
> >   File exists at start of backup && File exists at end of backup
> 
> Right, which seems to me to negate all these claims about needing a
> (horribly messy) way to read uncommitted system catalog entries, do
> blind reads, etc.  What's wrong with just exec'ing tar after having
> done a checkpoint?

Right.

It looks like insert/update/etc ops over local relations are
WAL-logged, and it's Ok (we have to do this).

So, we only have to use shared buffer pool for local (but probably
not for temporary) relations to close this issue, yes? I personally
don't see any performance issues if we do this.

Vadim