Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48562E0176 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:36:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 89135-01 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:36:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623EE2E0188 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:36:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m16DaZok006543 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:36:35 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news@news.hub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m16DTXcv004211 for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:29:33 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news) From: Hannes Dorbath X-Newsgroups: pgsql.admin Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Backup Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:29:16 +0100 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 34 Message-ID: <47A9B62C.8060508@theendofthetunnel.de> References: <00a201c85ee9$fbd1ca00$9b0014ac@wbaus090> <1201252875.4257.387.camel@ebony.site> <47A1BD51.3030902@otg-nc.com> <1201786128.4453.287.camel@ebony.site> <20080131143405.GC21660@svana.org> <20080131144314.GH11977@svr2.hagander.net> <47A1E2F6.7060108@otg-nc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org To: Chander Ganesan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) In-Reply-To: <47A1E2F6.7060108@otg-nc.com> To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200802/57 X-Sequence-Number: 28131 Chander Ganesan wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 03:34:05PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 01:28:48PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> >>>> That sentence has no place in any discussion about "backup" because the >>>> risk is not just a few transactions, it is a corrupt and inconsistent >>>> database from which both old and new data would be inaccessible. >>>> >>> Hmm? I thought the whole point of a filesystem snapshot was that it's >>> the same as if the system crashed. And I was fairly sure we could >>> recover from that... >>> >> >> That was my assumption as well. *Assuming* that the filesystem >> snapshot is >> consistent. There are a bunch of solutions that don't do consistent >> snapshots between different partitions, so if your WAL or one >> tablespace is >> on a different partition, you'll get corruption anyway... (seen this in >> Big Commercial Database, so that's not a pg problem) >> > Agreed. That's why I made it a point to mention that all of your > tablespaces should be on the same file system... In hindsight, I should > have also stated that your WAL logs should be on the same file system as One more reason to consider using Solaris ZFS -- it does consistent snapshots across all file systems. -- Best regards, Hannes Dorbath