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
>
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 |