Re: [GENERAL] Point in Time Recovery WAS: Hot Backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Justin Clift |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [GENERAL] Point in Time Recovery WAS: Hot Backup |
Date | |
Msg-id | 3DA46FB2.84ECE03E@postgresql.org Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [GENERAL] Point in Time Recovery WAS: Hot Backup ("Sandeep Chadha" <sandeep@newnetco.com>) |
Responses |
Re: [GENERAL] Point in Time Recovery WAS: Hot Backup
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
Rod Taylor wrote: > <snip> > Oh, if thats your problem then use asynchronous replication instead. For specific info, the contrib/rserv package does master->slave asynchronous replication as Rod is suggesting. From memory it was having troubles working with PostgreSQL 7.2.x, but someone recently submitted patches that make it work. There's a HOW-TO guide that a community member wrote on setting up rserv with PostgreSQL 7.0.3, although it should be practically identical for PostgreSQL 7.2.x (when rserv is patched to make it work). http://techdocs.postgresql.org/techdocs/settinguprserv.php That could be the basis for your async replication solution. Hope that helps. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift > It doesn't remove the slow time, but will distribute the slowness across > every transaction rather than all at once (via creation of replication > logs). Things won't degrade much during the snapshot transfer itself, > as there isn't very much work involved (differences only). > > Now periodically backup the secondary box. Needs diskspace, but not > very much power otherwise. > > #!/bin/sh > while(true) > do > asynchreplicate.sh > pg_dumpall > "`date`.bak" > done > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: scott.marlowe [mailto:scott.marlowe@ihs.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:19 PM > > To: Sandeep Chadha > > Cc: Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-general > > Subject: [GENERAL] Point in Time Recovery WAS: Hot Backup > > > > > > Hi Sandeep. What you were calling Hot Backup is really called Point in > > Time Recovery (PITR). Hot Backup means making a complete backup of the > > database while it is running, something Postgresql has supported for a > > very long time. > > > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Sandeep Chadha wrote: > > > > > Hello to all the Doers of Postgres!!! > > > > > > Last time I went through forums, people spoke highly about 7.3 and its > > > capability to do hot backups. My problem is if the database goes down > > > and I lose my main data store, then I will lose all transactions back > > > to the time I did the pg_dump. > > > > Let's make it clear that this kind of failure is EXTREMELY rare on real > > database servers since they almost ALL run their data sets on RAID arrays. > > While it is possible to lost >1 drive at the same time and all your > > database, it is probably more likely to have a bad memory chip corrupt > > your data silently, or a bad query delete data it shouldn't. > > > > That said, there IS work ongoing to provide this facility for Postgresql, > > but I would much rather have work done on making large complex queries run > > faster, or fix the little issues with foreign keys cause deadlocks. > > > > > Other databases (i e Oracle) solves this by retaining their archive > > > logs in some physically separate storage. So, when you lose your data, > > > you can restore the data from back-up, and then apply your archive log, > > > and avoid losing any committed transactions. > > > > > > > Postgresql has been lacking this all along. I've installed postgres > > > 7.3b2 and still don't see any archive's flushed to any other place. > > > Please let me know how is hot backup procedure implemented in current > > > 7.3 beta(2) release. > > > > Again, you'll get better response to your questions if you call it "point > > in time recovery" or pitr. Hot backup is the wrong word, and something > > Postgresql DOES have. > > > > It also supports WALs, which stands for Write ahead logs. These files > > store what the database is about to do before it does it. Should the > > database crash with transactions pending, the server will come back up and > > process the pending transactions that are in the WAL files, ensuring the > > integrity of your database. > > > > Point in Time recovery is very nice, but it's the last step in many to > > ensure a stable, coherent database, and will probably be in 7.4 or > > somewhere around there. If you're running in a RAID array, then the loss > > of your datastore should be a very remote possibility. > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > -- > Rod Taylor > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
pgsql-hackers by date: