| From: | akp geek <akpgeek(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Mead <scott(dot)lists(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Alban Hertroys <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Incremental Backups in postgres |
| Date: | 2009-11-10 21:49:43 |
| Message-ID: | 2024a9fb0911101349p40ac826i93b1e4fe0a765b37@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
So Is it always good to have the backup using PG_dump instead of PITR or a
combination of both
Please advice
Regards
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Scott Mead
<scott(dot)lists(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> It's always worth having the dump, even if you also implement PITR.
>> The dump allows you to restore just specific tables or to restore onto
>> a different type of system. The PITR backup is a physical
>> byte-for-byte copy which only works if you restore the whole database
>> and only on the same type of system.
>>
>
> Good point here, you really should have a 'logical' copy of your
> database around in case there is some kind of physical corruption in
> addition to Greg's good points.
>
> --Scott
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alan Hodgson | 2009-11-10 21:56:17 | Re: Incremental Backups in postgres |
| Previous Message | akp geek | 2009-11-10 21:47:53 | Re: Incremental Backups in postgres |