On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 21:04 -0500, Decibel! wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 09:54:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Perhaps the docs are not sufficiently clear on the point?
Yeah... I think that's a big gotcha waiting to smack someone. I'd
actually make the mention strong so that hopefully no one
In general, your handling of WAL files seems fragile and error-prone
Indeed. I would recommend simply using rsync to handle pushing the
files. I see several advantages:
1. Distributed load - you aren't copying a full-day of files all at once.
2. Very easy to set-up - you can use it
Steve Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. Much more up-to-the-minute recovery data.
In your scenario, what about using cp -l (or ln) instead? Since the
hard-link it is only creating a new pointer, it will be very fast and
save a bunch of disk IO on your server and it doesn't appear that
Gregory Stark wrote:
In your scenario, what about using cp -l (or ln) instead?
Postgres tries to reuse WAL files. Once the archive_command completes it
believes it is safe to reuse the old file without deleting it. That will do
nasty things if you've used ln as your archive command.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:05:52AM -0700, Steve Crawford wrote:
In your scenario, what about using cp -l (or ln) instead? Since the
hard-link it is only creating a new pointer, it will be very fast and
save a bunch of disk IO on your server and it doesn't appear that the
tempdir is for much
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 08:31:10PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
Steve Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. Much more up-to-the-minute recovery data.
In your scenario, what about using cp -l (or ln) instead? Since the
hard-link it is only creating a new pointer, it will be very fast and
Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 08:31:10PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
Postgres tries to reuse WAL files. Once the archive_command completes it
believes it is safe to reuse the old file without deleting it. That will do
nasty things if you've used ln as your archive
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 09:54:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 08:31:10PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
Postgres tries to reuse WAL files. Once the archive_command completes it
believes it is safe to reuse the old file without deleting it.
On Aug 17, 2007, at 5:48 PM, Joey K. wrote:
We have several web applications with Pg 8.2.x running on isolated
servers (~25). The database size on each machines (du -h pgdata) is
~2 GB. We have been using nightly filesystem backup (stop pg, tar
backup to ftp, start pg) and it worked well.
Greetings,
We have several web applications with Pg 8.2.x running on isolated servers
(~25). The database size on each machines (du -h pgdata) is ~2 GB. We have
been using nightly filesystem backup (stop pg, tar backup to ftp, start pg)
and it worked well.
We would like to move to PITR backups
10 matches
Mail list logo
