On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 03:34:05PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 01:28:48PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > That sentence has no place in any discussion about "backup" because the
> > risk is not just a few transactions, it is a corrupt and inconsistent
> > database from which both old and new data would be inaccessible.
>
> Hmm? I thought the whole point of a filesystem snapshot was that it's
> the same as if the system crashed. And I was fairly sure we could
> recover from that...
That was my assumption as well. *Assuming* that the filesystem snapshot is
consistent. There are a bunch of solutions that don't do consistent
snapshots between different partitions, so if your WAL or one tablespace is
on a different partition, you'll get corruption anyway... (seen this in
Big Commercial Database, so that's not a pg problem)
//Magnus