| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |
| 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 |