Chander Ganesan wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> 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)
>>
> Agreed. That's why I made it a point to mention that all of your
> tablespaces should be on the same file system... In hindsight, I should
> have also stated that your WAL logs should be on the same file system as
One more reason to consider using Solaris ZFS -- it does consistent
snapshots across all file systems.
--
Best regards,
Hannes Dorbath