On Fri, 2021-07-23 at 16:12 +0200, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > I think your example is bad: If both rows are added in independent > transactions, possibly inconsistent table data simply needs to be > accepted. No backup mechanism will change anything on that, because > the second row might always be inserted "too late". Stephen has already pointed out the flaws in your reasoning, so let me illustrate my example in more detail: You add the rows in A and B in two different transactions: first the row in A, then the dependent row in B. At that time the data file for A has already been backed up. After both rows are committed, the data file for B is backed up. Now if you replay WAL to a point in time before all that took place (which you can do, because your BACKUP_END record was written before you started your backup), you will have the row in B, but not the row in A. Data corruption. Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
