> >> It should be sufficient to force a checkpoint when you
> >> start and when you're done --- altering normal operation 
> in between is
> >> a bad design.
> 
> > But you have to prevent log files reusing while you copy data files.
> 
> No, I don't think so.  If you are using PITR then you presumably have
> some process responsible for archiving off log files on a continuous
> basis.  The backup process should leave that normal 
> operational behavior in place, not muck with it.

Well, PITR without log archiving could be alternative to
pg_dump/pg_restore, but I agreed that it's not the big
feature to worry about.

Vadim

Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:31:04 -0700 
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations 
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes:
>> No, I don't think so.  If you are using PITR then you presumably have
>> some process responsible for archiving off log files on a continuous
>> basis.  The backup process should leave that normal 
>> operational behavior in place, not muck with it.

> Well, PITR without log archiving could be alternative to
> pg_dump/pg_restore, but I agreed that it's not the big
> feature to worry about.

Seems like a pointless "feature" to me.  A pg_dump dump serves just
as well to capture a snapshot --- in fact better, since it's likely
smaller, definitely more portable, amenable to selective restore, etc.

I think we should design the PITR dump to do a good job for PITR,
not a poor job of both PITR and pg_dump.

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:44:27 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations 