Re: using pg_basebackup for point in time recovery

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pierre Timmermans <ptim007(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: using pg_basebackup for point in time recovery
Date: 2018-06-22 06:37:26
Message-ID: 20180622063726.GG5215@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 04:50:38PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Generally only actual bug fixes get back-patched; but I'd have to say
> this looks like it could easily be classified as one.

Everybody is against me here ;)

> Some comments on the patch itself:
>
> "recover up to the wanted recovery point." - "desired recovery point" reads
> better to me
>
> ====
> "These backups are typically much faster to backup and restore" - "These
> backups are typically much faster to create and restore"; avoid repeated
> use of the word backup

Okay.

> "but can result as well in larger backup sizes" - "but can result in larger
> backup sizes", drop the unnecessary 'as well'

Okay.

> I like adding "cold backup" here to help contrast and explain why a base
> backup is considered a "hot backup". The rest is style to make that flow
> better.

Indeed. The section uses hot backups a lot.

What do all folks here think about the updated attached?
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
pitr-docs-v2.patch text/x-diff 1.3 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Łukasz Jarych 2018-06-22 08:12:48 Copies or tables in schema or copiyng of database - database versioning
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-06-22 06:27:52 Re: using pg_basebackup for point in time recovery