| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: block-level incremental backup |
| Date: | 2019-04-22 18:33:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20190422183346.5ggwb3c34vt4trtz@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-04-22 14:26:40 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I'm disappointed that the concerns about the trouble that end users are
> likely to have with this didn't garner more discussion.
My impression is that endusers are having a lot more trouble due to
important backup/restore features not being in core/pg_basebackup, than
due to external tools having a harder time to implement certain
features. Focusing on external tools being able to provide all those
features, because core hasn't yet, is imo entirely the wrong thing to
concentrate upon. And it's not like things largely haven't been
implemented in pg_basebackup for fundamental architectural reasons.
It's because we've built like 5 different external tools with randomly
differing featureset and licenses.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-04-22 18:51:48 | Re: TM format can mix encodings in to_char() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-22 18:30:36 | Re: pg_dump is broken for partition tablespaces |