| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup |
| Date: | 2014-07-31 06:38:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRhjW0104fVmCAcNBjtAPxyv7VOW4qFxQuYJuNEXxA2sg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> One more thing, what will happen for unlogged tables with such a
> mechanism?
I imagine that you can safely bypass them as they are not accessible
during recovery and will start with empty relation files once recovery
ends. The same applies to temporary relations. Also this bgworker will
need access to the catalogs to look at the relation relkind.
Regards,
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-07-31 06:45:01 | Re: commitfest status |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-07-31 06:26:57 | Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup |