From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Ghislain ROUVIGNAC <ghr(at)sylob(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Portworx snapshots |
Date: | 2018-10-30 15:26:27 |
Message-ID: | 20181030152627.GR4184@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Greetings,
* Ghislain ROUVIGNAC (ghr(at)sylob(dot)com) wrote:
> Our application don't write lot of data, so i don't think the time taken on
> replaying the WAL will be an issue for us.
That certainly makes things simpler.
Then again, if you are not writing a lot of data then you might consider
using synchronous replication with PostgreSQL if you want to have a
durability guarantee which is across multiple otherwise independent
systems. You can then also combine that with a proper backup solution
(please, do not try and build your own) and WAL archiving and be able to
perform PITR (point-in-time-recovery), which snapshots don't give you.
> For reliability, as you said, i was thinking in running a large pgbench
> which writes a lot of data, while taking snapshots.
> Then my idea was to restart from snapshots and see if everything works as
> expected.
Sure, testing is good and should be done regardless of what solution you
employ.
> I thought that based on the feedback from the community, maybe i wouldn't
> need to run these tests.
You should always run your own tests, and do them regularly, including
testing things like "am I able to restore this backup?", "am I able to
fail over to this other server?", etc.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-30 15:31:51 | Re: pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum not always correct. |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-10-30 15:21:36 | Re: Portworx snapshots |