[sillysaurus2]

... what? The point of consistency is that if the power to your server is cut, then you can reboot and pick up precisely where you left off. That means the database on disk must have consistency. Meaning you should be able to copy it at any point in time without any problems. If you can't, then that's not consistency, and if postgres really works that way, then it's failing one of the basic tenants of being a database. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID

Any database that purports to have consistency must be able to withstand cutting the power to the server at any time. And if it can do that, then it must be true that you can copy the database folder at any time, too, without any special commands. (pg_start_backup is not issued before every power loss, so why would it need to be issued before a copy?)

On the other hand, if postgres doesn't support consistency, then that'd be a major reason not to use it.

EDIT: I'd run the server in a VM and backup VM snapshots. VMware makes this painless (and the snapshotting process is designed to have minimal impact disk I/O performance for precisely the scenario the OP described). VirtualBox probably has something similar. These replies seem crazily overcomplicated in comparison.

[wiredfool]

Unless tarsnap does something like LVM snapshotting, then it's not going to get a consistent snapshot. You can't just copy the directory of an active server.

See: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/continuous-archivi... section 24.3.2. Making a Base Backup.

IF you have something like LVM of ZFS doing snapshots, then you can just tar the data directory.

[wiredfool]

Re: VMs

Leaving aside the management issues of huge vm images and the less than ideal io performance, the ACID guarantees of pg rely on the underlying hardware obeying some specific restrictions, including real fsync and not lying about when things are on permanent storage. Getting the drives and raid controllers to obey that has historically been a difficult, ongoing job that has to be redone with each new generation of hardware. SSDs have been particularly interesting with that, the actual flush to disk can be quite delayed from the logical write. Some have supercaps, some don't. Those that don't are vulnerable to power losses while the data is still in the drive's ram awaiting a block erase and write. The IDE drivers used to flat out lie. Enterprise SAS drives often come with the write caching turned on (since it looks better in benchmarks) even though they're often times used behind a battery backed raid controller.

Adding a VM layer to that just to get snapshots seems overly complicated and prone to issues.

[nierman]

If you're taking an instantaneous snapshot of the system then yes. A standard copy/rsync/etc. isn't going to give you that. If the copy takes a long time at what point do you grab the pg_xlog directory? and are all the files there that you need/ed?

[alexkus]

ACID doesn't apply since you can't copy a large file in an instant. The copy takes time, in which time the files on disk can change. This isn't the same thing as the server losing power.

VM snapshots, zfs snapshots, etc are the way to go.

[emeraldd]

There's something that works and there's the right way to do it. It's better to do things the right way if you want to make sure everything is in a good state when you bring it back and there aren't edge cases you missed ... What if someone forgot to use a transaction?

[lucian1900]

The WAL is used for recovering from power loss. You need both the db files and your WAL to get a backup.