Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 8:52 PM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Mikheev, Vadim; [email protected]; J. R. Nield; PostgreSQL Hacker
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Mikheev, Vadim" <[email protected]> writes:
> > >> It should be sufficient to force a checkpoint when you
> > >> start and when you're done --- altering normal operation in
> between is
> > >> a bad design.
> >
> > > But you have to prevent log files reusing while you copy data files.
> >
> > No, I don't think so.  If you are using PITR then you presumably have
> > some process responsible for archiving off log files on a continuous
> > basis.  The backup process should leave that normal operational behavior
> > in place, not muck with it.
>
> But what if you normally continuous LOG to tape, and now you want to
> backup to tape.  You can't use the same tape drive for both operations.
> Is that typical?  I know sites that had only one tape drive that did
> that.
Our implementation of pg_copy did not archive to tape.  This adds a lot of
complications so I thought just make a disk to disk copy and then the disk
copy could be archived to table at the users discretion.
>
> --
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
>   [email protected]               |  (610) 853-3000
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>