-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
> Is cluttering of the wal archive area in cases where that backup
> had to be re-started for whatever reasons is the *only* concern ?
Well, yes, to be honest. But it may in consequence cause problems of
another kind, which I don't feel qualified to reassure you on: I am not
positive about what happens if you try to replay an old WAL on a current
database backup.
If nothing else, it is going to make the person restoring the backup
rather unnerved about success of the operation they are currently
performing, which is not a good thing, IMHO. They are restoring a backup
afterall, which means they'd already undergone a fair amount of stress
as it is. :)
End all, it is your choice to decide which is more trouble and which is
worth more: fixing the script to produce clean backups or informing your
backup operators about the extra care they need to take when restoring
backups.
> Please do not put too much effort, as i the drives in my other
> server has got installed and i am adapting the script for doing
> remote backup ( which is a more common senerio).
Very nice! How is it going? And how are you copying the WALs? scp? rsync?
Kind regards,
- --
Grega Bremec
gregab at p0f dot net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEPgU9fu4IwuB3+XoRA+MeAJ0dbbfcgBqP9SCYq0VICN8xrtGN0wCffE6i
kq1LlDwlJwmfrOtwRBwGqFg=
=olf3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----