J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Sunday 12 September 2010 13:32:00 Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:18:10PM +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > How can you ensure the snapshot is in a consistent state if the server is
> > > running?
> > >
> > > If a snapshot is taken between 2 updates in a single transaction, only
> > > half of this transaction is included in the snapshot.
> > > I would never take an LVM (or similar) snapshot of an application that
> > > can't be paused in a way to provide a consistent filesystem.
> >
> > That's the trick, the filesystem is always in a consistant state,
> > otherwise how could a database survive a power failure?
>
> This is something you want to try to avoid.
> Recovery situations are not always reliable.
With Postgres, they are always reliable, unless your hardware isn't.
> > The trick is WAL, which ensure that changes are logged consistantly and
> > replays them if the database crashes.
> >
> > If you take a snapshot the database will simply startup and replay the
> > log as if the machine crashed at the point. All committed transactions
> > appears anything uncommitted vanishes.
>
> Nice in theory.
> Except backups can not be fully trusted if they rely on database recovery
> mechanics as part of the restore process.
> How certain can you be that the data you have in your backup will always
> result to being able to recover 100%?
If you don't want to trust our recovery, that is your decision. We are
telling you others do trust it.
If you don't trust our crash recovery, perhaps you shouldn't trust
Postgres and consider another database that you trust more.
I am afraid you have used some untrustworth databases in your past ---
Postgres is not one of them.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
