Re: Barman versus pgBackRest

From: Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Barman versus pgBackRest
Date: 2018-09-04 11:41:36
Message-ID: 0eb45bab-8ff7-7255-f052-951edd09b804@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 03/09/2018 08:56 AM, David Steele wrote:
[snip]
>> About pgBarman, I like :
>> - be able restore on a remote server from the backup server
> This a good feature, and one that has been requested for pgBackRest. You
> can do this fairly trivially with ssh, however, so it generally hasn't
> been a big deal for people. Is there a particular reason you need this
> feature?

(Sorry to dredge up this old thread.)

Do you just change the IP address of the "restore target"?

>> - use replication slots for backingup wal on the backup server.
> Another good feature. We have not added it yet because pgBackRest was
> originally written for very high-volume clusters (100K+ WAL per day) and
> our parallel async feature answers that need much better. We recommend
> a replicated standby for more update-to-date data.

Every N minutes you copy the WAL files to the backup server?

--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Poty 2018-09-04 12:14:53 Re: Barman versus pgBackRest
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-09-04 01:08:07 Re: WARNING: could not flush dirty data: Function not implemented