From: | mike g <mike(at)thegodshalls(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joel Matthew <rees(at)ddcom(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: incremental backups? |
Date: | 2004-06-23 03:51:42 |
Message-ID: | 1087962702.8280.35.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Slony version 1 is supposed to be live very soon. You can test beta3 if
you like.
Perhaps pgpool could help you. Version 2 was just released.
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 22:28, Joel Matthew wrote:
> My boss was asking about incremental backups.
>
> I was scratching my head, thinking that the transaction log and a backup
> policy (script) for each record set (sorry about the archaic terminology)
> was the usual solution. But there is a some resistance against writing
> more code, so I'm wondering what the current state of affairs with
> postgresql in regards to incremental backup would be.
>
> A quick search of the lists produced the following:
>
> Bruce talks in November 2002 about plans for point-in-time recovery in v.
> 7.4, but last December says it isn't there yet.
>
> Jan mentions Slony-I replication back last January.
>
> Somebody threw in some chatter about XLog.
>
> Scott metioned briefly last August the possibility of combining a live
> data server with an archive server, or of using a daily schema.
>
> What's the typical user doing for incrementals, besides going to a
> commercial server?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vams | 2004-06-23 04:00:58 | Re: Datatype sizes; a space and speed issue? |
Previous Message | Vams | 2004-06-23 03:46:38 | Parameters from trigger to function. |