public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feed.backup files not needed?
5+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]
* .backup files not needed?
@ 2008-05-09 06:51 Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
2008-05-09 14:28 ` Re: .backup files not needed? Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2008-05-09 14:35 ` Re: .backup files not needed? Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Simon Riggs @ 2008-05-09 06:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
Just had questions from a replication user about why the .backup file is
described as "can ordinarily be ignored" and is considered optional by
recovery also even when pg_start_backup() was used.
If the file was created, it is necessary to use it in recovery, so
should never be ignored as the docs imply.
Can we remove the phrase ", and can ordinarily be ignored." ? from
doc/src/sgml/backup.sgml
<para>
To make use of the backup, you will need to keep around all the WAL
segment files generated during and after the file system backup.
To aid you in doing this, the <function>pg_stop_backup</> function
creates a <firstterm>backup history file</> that is immediately
stored into the WAL archive area. This file is named after the first
WAL segment file that you need to have to make use of the backup.
For example, if the starting WAL file is
<literal>0000000100001234000055CD</> the backup history file will be
named something like
<literal>0000000100001234000055CD.007C9330.backup</>. (The second
part of the file name stands for an exact position within the WAL
file, and can ordinarily be ignored.) Once you have safely archived
the file system backup and the WAL segment files used during the
backup (as specified in the backup history file), all archived WAL
segments with names numerically less are no longer needed to recover
the file system backup and can be deleted. However, you should
consider keeping several backup sets to be absolutely certain that
you can recover your data.
</para>
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: .backup files not needed?
2008-05-09 06:51 .backup files not needed? Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
@ 2008-05-09 14:28 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2008-05-09 14:43 ` Re: .backup files not needed? Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2008-05-09 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Riggs <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
Simon Riggs <[email protected]> writes:
> Just had questions from a replication user about why the .backup file is
> described as "can ordinarily be ignored" and is considered optional by
> recovery also even when pg_start_backup() was used.
What it says is that the second part of the filename can ordinarily
be ignored. I don't know why neither he nor you managed to parse the
sentence correctly. Feel free to propose a rewording, but removing
information doesn't sound like a solution.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: .backup files not needed?
2008-05-09 06:51 .backup files not needed? Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
2008-05-09 14:28 ` Re: .backup files not needed? Tom Lane <[email protected]>
@ 2008-05-09 14:43 ` Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Simon Riggs @ 2008-05-09 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[email protected]> writes:
> > Just had questions from a replication user about why the .backup file is
> > described as "can ordinarily be ignored" and is considered optional by
> > recovery also even when pg_start_backup() was used.
>
> What it says is that the second part of the filename can ordinarily
> be ignored. I don't know why neither he nor you managed to parse the
> sentence correctly. Feel free to propose a rewording, but removing
> information doesn't sound like a solution.
Its probably best to read the whole mail before commenting on other
people's parsing. ;-)
I'll do a patch.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: .backup files not needed?
2008-05-09 06:51 .backup files not needed? Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
@ 2008-05-09 14:35 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2008-05-09 14:49 ` Re: .backup files not needed? Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2008-05-09 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Riggs <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Just had questions from a replication user about why the .backup file is
> described as "can ordinarily be ignored" and is considered optional by
> recovery also even when pg_start_backup() was used.
>
> If the file was created, it is necessary to use it in recovery, so
> should never be ignored as the docs imply.
>
> Can we remove the phrase ", and can ordinarily be ignored." ? from
> doc/src/sgml/backup.sgml
>
> <para>
> To make use of the backup, you will need to keep around all the WAL
> segment files generated during and after the file system backup.
> To aid you in doing this, the <function>pg_stop_backup</> function
> creates a <firstterm>backup history file</> that is immediately
> stored into the WAL archive area. This file is named after the first
> WAL segment file that you need to have to make use of the backup.
> For example, if the starting WAL file is
> <literal>0000000100001234000055CD</> the backup history file will be
> named something like
> <literal>0000000100001234000055CD.007C9330.backup</>. (The second
> part of the file name stands for an exact position within the WAL
> file, and can ordinarily be ignored.) Once you have safely archived
> the file system backup and the WAL segment files used during the
> backup (as specified in the backup history file), all archived WAL
> segments with names numerically less are no longer needed to recover
> the file system backup and can be deleted. However, you should
> consider keeping several backup sets to be absolutely certain that
> you can recover your data.
> </para>
The comment is saying "the second part of the file name" can be ignored,
not the backup file itself.
--
Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: .backup files not needed?
2008-05-09 06:51 .backup files not needed? Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
2008-05-09 14:35 ` Re: .backup files not needed? Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
@ 2008-05-09 14:49 ` Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Simon Riggs @ 2008-05-09 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 10:35 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The comment is saying "the second part of the file name" can be ignored,
> not the backup file itself.
Yes, I know. I'm asking if anyone minds me changing the docs to make it
clearer, not being confused by it myself. The issue was raised because
pg_standby doesn't treat the file as optional, though recovery code
does.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-05-09 14:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-05-09 06:51 .backup files not needed? Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
2008-05-09 14:28 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2008-05-09 14:43 ` Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
2008-05-09 14:35 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2008-05-09 14:49 ` Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox