On 02/11/17 11:18, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Not having
> a way to reliably sync the WAL files copied by archive command to disk,
> in particular, really is an issue, it's not some feature, it's a
> requirement of a functional PG backup system. The other requirement for
> a functional PG backup system is a check to verify that all of the WAL
> for a given backup has been archived safely to disk, otherwise the
> backup is incomplete and can't be used.
>
>
Funnily enough, the original poster's scripts were attempting to address
(at least some) of this: he was sending stuff to swift, so if he got a
ok return code then it is *there* - that being the whole point of a
distributed, fault tolerant object store (I do swift support BTW).
I wonder if you are seeing this discussion in the light of folk doing
backups to unreliable storage locations (e.g: the same server, NFS etc
etc), then sure I completely agree with what you are saying (these issue
impact backup designs no matter what tool is used to write them).
Best wishes
Mark
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin