X-Original-To: pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA33D1B26D for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:20:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26861-03 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:20:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB2AD1B23C for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:20:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6EDK8Tj025904; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:20:08 -0400 (EDT) To: Simon Riggs Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne , Bruce Momjian , Klaus Naumann , markw@osdl.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery In-reply-to: <1089789682.17493.3890.camel@stromboli> References: <200407132242.i6DMgg612564@candle.pha.pa.us> <1089760416.17493.3327.camel@stromboli> <40F49AE9.2060805@familyhealth.com.au> <1089789682.17493.3890.camel@stromboli> Comments: In-reply-to Simon Riggs message dated "Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:21:22 +0100" Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:20:08 -0400 Message-ID: <25903.1089811208@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200407/165 X-Sequence-Number: 14233 Simon Riggs writes: > I've not done power off tests, yet. They need to be done just to > check...actually you don't need to do this to test PITR... I agree, power off is not really the point here. What we need to check into is (a) the mechanics of archiving WAL segments and (b) the process of restoring given a backup and a bunch of WAL segments. regards, tom lane