On 7/10/2004 3:21 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 15:04, Jan Wieck wrote:
> ...Nobody is shouting YES, so its a dodo...
No way!
Sorry...I meant "this idea is dead, just like the extinct Dodo bird".-
I've been trying to be succinct, but that has led to information loss.
I know, "preser
On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 15:04, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 7/5/2004 6:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 22:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > ...While recovering, it is very straightforward to simply ignore every
> >> > record associated with one (o
On 7/5/2004 6:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 22:30, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...While recovering, it is very straightforward to simply ignore every
> record associated with one (or more) transactions. That gives us the
> ability to recover "all apar
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 00:30, Mike Mascari wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 23:40, Mike Mascari wrote:
> >
> > hmmm...not sure I know what you mean.
> >
> > It is very-very-close-to-impossible to edit the transaction logs
> > manually, unless some form of special-format ed
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 23:40, Mike Mascari wrote:
hmmm...not sure I know what you mean.
It is very-very-close-to-impossible to edit the transaction logs
manually, unless some form of special-format editor were written for the
purpose.
Is it clear that the PITR features are comp
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 23:40, Mike Mascari wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> >
> > ...Nobody is shouting YES, so its a dodo...
>
> The point at which the above process becomes
> too complex (or less than obvious) for hand-recovery is precisely
> when unforeseen consequences of nixing a single tr
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 22:30, Tom Lane wrote:
...Nobody is shouting YES, so its a dodo...
I can imagine a scenario where the junior DBA accidentally deletes
all rows from some obscure table that wouldn't have logical
implications for later transactions. But I suspect most people
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 22:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ...While recovering, it is very straightforward to simply ignore every
> > record associated with one (or more) transactions. That gives us the
> > ability to recover "all apart from txnid X".
>
> Don't even
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...While recovering, it is very straightforward to simply ignore every
> record associated with one (or more) transactions. That gives us the
> ability to recover "all apart from txnid X".
Don't even *think* of going there.
What will happen when transacti
I'm looking at a couple of features that are possible to add.
>From what people have said before on list, one of the useful features of
PITR is to recover from rogue transactions.
I have a suggestion that I'd like some considered thought on. I've given
it a couple of weeks thought. My first incli
10 matches
Mail list logo
