Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9392E009E for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 17:11:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64963-02-9 for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 17:11:10 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.159]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F0F2E0052 for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 17:10:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from jd-laptop (cmdalert.com [69.55.229.115]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m47KBer9022235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 7 May 2008 13:11:41 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 13:11:25 -0700 From: "Joshua D. Drake" To: "John Smith" Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Backup/Restore of single table in multi TB database Message-ID: <20080507131125.1dadb799@jd-laptop> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Joshua D. Drake X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.4.0 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/Sgdqttng4r5.W2PyB=vEsGz"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]); Wed, 07 May 2008 13:11:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200805/239 X-Sequence-Number: 132638 --Sig_/Sgdqttng4r5.W2PyB=vEsGz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:02:57 -0700 "John Smith" wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I have a large database (multiple TBs) where I'd like to be able to do > a backup/restore of just a particular table (call it foo). Because > the database is large, the time for a full backup would be > prohibitive. Also, whatever backup mechanism we do use needs to keep > the system online (i.e., users must still be allowed to update table > foo while we're taking the backup). > Does anyone see a problem with this approach (e.g., correctness, > performance, etc.)? Or is there perhaps an alternative approach using > some other postgresql mechanism that I'm not aware of? Why are you not just using pg_dump -t ? Are you saying the backup of the single table pg_dump takes to long? Perhaps you could use slony with table sets? Joshua D. Drake --=20 The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/=20 PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate --Sig_/Sgdqttng4r5.W2PyB=vEsGz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIIgzwATb/zqfZUUQRAqMJAKCocYx5pOA5osUql73ari2URXM0cACeOfJP f7QnfE7qEkYTgExGbSIiDdA= =+V0C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Sgdqttng4r5.W2PyB=vEsGz--