Heikki Linnakangas escribió:
> I don't think it's going to work too well, though, not without major
> changes at least. What would happen when you restore a PITR backup of just
> one database? Would the other databases still be there in the restored
> cluster? What state would they be in? After restoring one database, and
> doing some stuff on it, could you ever "merge" those changes with the rest
> of the cluster?
Well, a PITR slave, after you change it, cannot be brought in sync with
the master. This is not different.
If you replicate a single database's stream, the other databases should
not be there. My idea is that a slave could request multiple databases'
streams. The ability to do it is needed anyway, to follow both the
basic database stream and the shared stream.
> Mind you, there's more things shared between databases than the shared
> catalogs. clog for example.
Sure --- my original proposal mentioned the use of the shared WAL stream
for global objects (though I didn't mention pg_clog, but surely it had
better be there).
> For more usefulness, we'd need to keep databases more separate from each
> other than we do now. Databases would need to have their own transaction
> counters, for example.
Hmm, why? Perhaps you are right but I don't see the reason.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
