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) //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
