On 01/05/13 12:36, Yang Zhang wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Julian Glass <tempura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 01/05/13 09:55, Yang Zhang wrote: >>> I would intuit that it's fine, but I just want to make sure there are >>> no gotchas from a recovery point of view: >>> >>> If I were to lose my temp tablespace upon system crash, would this >>> prevent proper crash recovery? >>> >>> Also, if I were to omit the temp tablespace from the base backup, >>> would that prevent proper backup recovery? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >> Yes I find this interesting. I wonder if you can snapshot the tablespace >> filesystem upon initiation, then mount the snapshot backup before >> restarting the server. >> >> Worth testing. > This strikes me as the sort of thing that is dangerous to attempt to > validate using strictly black-box testing, esp. by someone such as > myself who has little knowledge of PG internals - just because it > works for certain test cases of mine doesn't yield generalizable > guarantees. System disk failure is pretty serious, but I'm not sure if shutting down the server would be required. I have no experience yet with a tablespace failure on temporary objects (tablespaces + MV is a future interest). Is there a reason why dropping the temp objects, including the tablespace and resetting temp_tablespaces to DEFAULT would not work? Its not clear how you utilize this temp tablespace. (Assuming you are using temp_tablespaces and not defining it withing the table definition.) Regards, Julians (Sorry about missing the ML previously) -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
