Re: OK to put temp tablespace on volatile storage or to omit it from backups? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Christophe Pettus
Subject Re: OK to put temp tablespace on volatile storage or to omit it from backups?
Date
Msg-id FABAC7F1-3172-4B5D-8E56-0B3C579980EC@thebuild.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: OK to put temp tablespace on volatile storage or to omit it from backups?  (Yang Zhang <yanghatespam@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:14 PM, Yang Zhang wrote:

> Is this the extent of what I can expect, *always*, even if I had run
> the proper experiment involving pulling the cord (or at least kill
> -9)?

I would not count on it.  And if it works 100% reliably now, it might not on a future version of PostgreSQL.

As Josh Berkus pointed out to my off-list, there are two competing definitions of the term "recover" in use here:

1. In my blog post, the definition of "recover" was "bring up the database without having unusually extensive knowledge
ofPostgreSQL's internals." 
2. For Tom, the definition of "recover" is "bring up the database if you have appropriate knowledge of PostgreSQL's
internals."

You can't recover from the lost of a tablespace per definition #1.  You can per definition #2.

I'd strongly suggest that relying on definition #2, while absolutely correct, is a poor operational decision for most
users.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
   xof@thebuild.com



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Carlo Stonebanks"
Date:
Subject: Re: Simple SQL INSERT to avoid duplication failed: why?
Next
From: Steven Schlansker
Date:
Subject: Re: Simple SQL INSERT to avoid duplication failed: why?