Re: skipping pg_log in basebackup (was Re: pg_basebackup and pg_stat_tmp directory) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: skipping pg_log in basebackup (was Re: pg_basebackup and pg_stat_tmp directory)
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmobu6drc2f4JQM=WaZNY1z-_k0pyj7=V54eae5tDO9pVGg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: skipping pg_log in basebackup (was Re: pg_basebackup and pg_stat_tmp directory)  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: skipping pg_log in basebackup (was Re: pg_basebackup and pg_stat_tmp directory)  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: skipping pg_log in basebackup (was Re: pg_basebackup and pg_stat_tmp directory)  (Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 10:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2015-06-10 09:57:17 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> Mine goal isn't that.  My goal is to have a consistent backup without
>>> having to shut down the server to take a cold one, or having to manually
>>> juggle the pg_start_backup, etc. commands.
>>
>> A basebackup won't necessarily give you a consistent log though...
>
> I am -1 on this idea. It just doesn't seem to make sense. There are too many
> variables where it won't work or won't be relevant.

I'm not clear on which of these options you are voting for:

(1) include pg_log in pg_basebackup as we do currently
(2) exclude it
(3) add a switch controlling whether or not it gets excluded

I can live with (3), but I bet most people want (2).

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: skipping pg_log in basebackup (was Re: pg_basebackup and pg_stat_tmp directory)