If you don't start archiving log files, your first backup won't be valid
-- well I suppose you could do it the hard way and start the backup and
the log archiving at exactly the same time (can't picture how to time
that), but the point is you need the current log when you kick off the
backup.
On Jan 16, 2008 4:56 PM, Tom Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 17/01/2008, at 4:42 AM, Tom Arthurs wrote:
> > The important thing is to start archiving the WAL files *prior* to
> > the first OS backup, or you will end up with an unusable data base.
>
> Why does the recovery need WAL files fr
Tom Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 17/01/2008, at 4:42 AM, Tom Arthurs wrote:
>> The important thing is to start archiving the WAL files *prior* to
>> the first OS backup, or you will end up with an unusable data base.
> Why does the recovery need WAL files from before the backup?
It d
On 17/01/2008, at 4:42 AM, Tom Arthurs wrote:
The important thing is to start archiving the WAL files *prior* to
the first OS backup, or you will end up with an unusable data base.
Why does the recovery need WAL files from before the backup?
Tom
---(end of broadcast)
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:19:12 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You can be absolutely certain that the tar backup of a file that's changed
> > is a complete waste of time. Because it changed while you were copying it.
>
> That is, no doubt
Hi, Brian
We have been doing PITR backups since the feature first became available
in postgresql. We first used tar, then, due to the dreadful warning
being emitted by tar (which made us doubt that it was actually archiving
that particular file) we decided to try CPIO, which actually emits mu
Brian Modra wrote:
Sorry to be hammering this point, but I want to be totally sure its
OK, rather than 5 months down the line attempt to recover, and it fails...
Are you absolutely certain that the tar backup of the file that
changed, is OK? (And that even if that file is huge, tar has manage
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Mittwoch, 16. Januar 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> (Thinks for a bit...) Actually I guess there's one extra assumption in
>> there, which is that tar must issue its reads in multiples of our page
>> size. But that doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
Am Mittwoch, 16. Januar 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
> (Thinks for a bit...) Actually I guess there's one extra assumption in
> there, which is that tar must issue its reads in multiples of our page
> size. But that doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
There is something about that here:
http://www.gn
Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can be absolutely certain that the tar backup of a file that's changed is
> a complete waste of time. Because it changed while you were copying it.
That is, no doubt, the reasoning that prompted the gnu tar people to
make it do what it does, but i
Brian Modra wrote:
Sorry to be hammering this point, but I want to be totally sure its OK,
rather than 5 months down the line attempt to recover, and it fails...
Are you absolutely certain that the tar backup of the file that changed,
is OK?
Have you considered testing it?
Sincerely,
Josh
You can be absolutely certain that the tar backup of a file that's changed is a
complete waste of time. Because it changed while you were copying it.
Steve.
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:24:00 +0200
"Brian Modra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry to be hammering this point, but I want to be totally s
Sorry to be hammering this point, but I want to be totally sure its OK,
rather than 5 months down the line attempt to recover, and it fails...
Are you absolutely certain that the tar backup of the file that changed, is
OK? (And that even if that file is huge, tar has managed to save the file as
it
Brian Modra wrote:
The documentation about WAL says that you can start a live backup, as
long as you use WAL backup also.
I'm concerned about the integrity of the tar file. Can someone help me
with that?
If you are using point in time recovery:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/contin
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Modra wrote:
>> If tar reports that a file was modified while it was being archived,
>> does that mean that the file was archived correctly, or is it corrupted
>> in the archive?
> You can not use tar to backup postgresql if it is running.
Y
The documentation about WAL says that you can start a live backup, as long
as you use WAL backup also.
I'm concerned about the integrity of the tar file. Can someone help me with
that?
On 16/01/2008, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Brian Modra wrote:
> > Hi,
> > If tar reports that
Brian Modra wrote:
Hi,
If tar reports that a file was modified while it was being archived,
does that mean that the file was archived correctly, or is it corrupted
in the archive?
Does tar take a snapshot of the file so that even if it is modified, at
least the archive is safe?
You can not u
Hi,
If tar reports that a file was modified while it was being archived, does
that mean that the file was archived correctly, or is it corrupted in the
archive?
Does tar take a snapshot of the file so that even if it is modified, at
least the archive is safe?
Thanks
--
Brian Modra Land line: +2
18 matches
Mail list logo
