From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hot Backup |
Date: | 2002-10-24 14:42:00 |
Message-ID: | 1035470520.12582.7.camel@camel |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
I think you missed the part of the thread where the nuclear bomb hit the
data center. hmm... maybe it wasn't a nuclear bomb, but it was getting
there. :-)
BTW - I believe we'll have real PITR in 7.4, about 6 months away.
Robert Treat
On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 10:34, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:40:44AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> > Is it me or do doomsdays scenarios sometimes seem a little silly? I'd
>
> Not if your contract requires five-nines reliablility and no more
> than 180 minutes of downtime _ever_. Is five-nines realistic? For
> most purposes, probably not, according to recent pronouncements (see,
> e.g. <http://www.bcr.com/bcrmag/2002/05/p22.asp>). But it's in
> lots of contracts anyway.
>
> > like to ask just where are you storing your "incremental backups" with
> > Oracle/m$ sql ?? If it's on the same drive, then when you drive craps
>
> The more or less standard way of doing this is to stream the
> PITR-required stuff to another device on another controller -- lots
> of people stream to tape. People have been doing this for ages,
> partly because disks used to be (a) expensive and (b) unreliable.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeffrey Melloy | 2002-10-24 14:50:08 | Re: Perl DBD::Pg problem |
Previous Message | Fernando Papa | 2002-10-24 13:57:51 | heap_blks_hit and heap_blks_read |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ben McMahan | 2002-10-24 20:09:00 | Turning the PLANNER off |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-24 14:23:29 | Re: Using the same condition twice |