Re: Incremental Backups in postgres

From: silly8888 <silly8888(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alan Hodgson <ahodgson(at)simkin(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Incremental Backups in postgres
Date: 2009-11-10 22:09:55
Message-ID: 3c8f9f940911101409j51d6149bo6cf8a0e586c09a60@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

How about using replication instead of incremental backups?

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Alan Hodgson <ahodgson(at)simkin(dot)ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 November 2009, akp geek <akpgeek(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> So Is it always good to have the backup using PG_dump instead of PITR or
>> a combination of both
>>
>
> I like to do both. Ongoing PITR, daily base backups (by updating an rsync
> copy), and weekly pg_dumps that in turn go to tape.
>
> PITR gives a very recent restore point in the event of server loss. As
> previously mentioned, the full (custom) backups let you restore individual
> tables. They're also a lot smaller than base backups + WAL logs.
>
> --
> "No animals were harmed in the recording of this episode. We tried but that
> damn monkey was just too fast."
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Broersma 2009-11-10 22:10:31 Re: Editor for sgml files
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-11-10 22:04:55 Re: Editor for sgml files