> * Tatsuo Ishii (ishii@postgresql.org) wrote:
>> > * Tatsuo Ishii (ishii@postgresql.org) wrote:
>> >> Yeah, at first I thought using WAL was a good idea. However I realized
>> >> that the problem using WAL is we cannot backup unlogged tables because
>> >> they are not written to WAL.
>> >
>> > Unlogged tables are also nuked on recovery, so I'm not sure why you
>> > think an incremental backup would help.. If you're recovering (even
>> > from a simple crash), unlogged tables are going to go away.
>>
>> If my memory serves, unlogged tables are not nuked when PostgeSQL is
>> stopped by a planned shutdown (not by crash or by "pg_ctl -m i
>> stop"). If PostgreSQL works so, incremental backup should be able to
>> recover unlogged tables as well, at least people would expect so IMO.
>
> Sure, if you shut down PG, rsync the entire thing and then bring it back
> up then unlogged tables should work when "backed up".
I don't think using rsync (or tar or whatever general file utils)
against TB database for incremental backup is practical. If it's
practical, I would never propose my idea.
> They're not WAL'd, so expecting them to work when restoring a backup of
> a PG that had been running at the time of the backup is folly.
Probably you forget about our nice pg_dump tool:-)
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp