Re: pg_dump & blobs - editable dump?
От | Pavel.Janik@linux.cz (Pavel Janík ml.) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump & blobs - editable dump? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m3zonn3s8f.fsf@totally-fudged-out-message-id обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: pg_dump & blobs - editable dump? (Peter Mount <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
[This is a multi-reply, CCs and -general removed.] From: Peter Mount <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:58:50 +0100 Hi, > Why not have it using something like tar, and the first file being > stored in ascii? some filesystems do not allow you to have files bigger then 2G :-( I do not think that one file (even gzipped tar file) is good. From: Peter Mount <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:32:10 +0100 > I don't know why you would want them as separate files - just think what > would happen to directory search times!! No problem, you can use one index file and hashes in it so files are then stored as: AA/AA/AA/00 AA/AA/AA/01 See how squid (http://www.squid-proxy.org/) does his job here. No problem, I think. I really prefer this solution over one big file. You can easily swap files with other databases, you can even create md5sum of md5sums of each file so you can have a multi-md5sum of your database (you can be really sure that your backup is OK, etc. :-). > That way (depending on the database design), you could handle the sql > & blobs separately but still have everythingbacked up. > > PS: Backups is formost on my mind at the moment - had an NT one blow > up in my face on Mondayand it wasn't nice :-( No one (I hope) is arguing about the need for backing BLOBs from the DB :-) -- Pavel Janík ml. Pavel.Janik@linux.cz
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: