Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1145049565.7917.1.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with PITR? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with PITR?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2006-04-14 kell 16:40, kirjutas Tom Lane: > I think we had originally argued that there was no problem anyway > because the kernel should cause the page write to appear atomic to other > processes (since we issue it in a single write() command). But that's > only true if the backup-taker reads in units that are multiples of > BLCKSZ. If the backup-taker reads, say, 4K at a time then it's > certainly possible that it gets a later version of the second half of a > page than it got of the first half. I don't know about you, but I sure > don't feel comfortable making assumptions at that level about the > behavior of tar or cpio. > > I fear we still have to disable full_page_writes (force it ON) if > XLogArchivingActive is on. Comments? Why not just tell the backup-taker to take backups using 8K pages ? --------------- Hannu
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: