From: | Agent M <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Long term database archival |
Date: | 2006-07-07 00:05:37 |
Message-ID: | 2440e796820f6c0a349dbb8057a94214@themactionfaction.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Will postgresql be a viable database in 20 years? Will SQL be used
anywhere in 20 years? Are you sure 20 years is your ideal backup
duration?
Very few media even last 5 years. The good thing about open source and
open standards is that regardless of the answers to those questions,
there is no proprietary element to prevent you from accessing that
data- simply decide what it will be and update your backups along the
way. Whether such data will be relevant/ useful to anyone in 20 years
is a question you have to answer yourself. Good luck.
-M
On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the best pg_dump format for long-term database
> archival? That is, what format is most likely to
> be able to be restored into a future PostgreSQL
> cluster.
>
> Mostly, we're interested in dumps done with
> --data-only, and have preferred the
> default (-F c) format. But this form is somewhat more
> opaque than a plain text SQL dump, which is bound
> to be supported forever "out of the box".
> Should we want to restore a 20 year old backup
> nobody's going to want to be messing around with
> decoding a "custom" format dump if it does not
> just load all by itself.
>
> Is the answer different if we're dumping the
> schema as well as the data?
>
> Thanks.
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
AgentM
agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Broersma Jr | 2006-07-07 00:22:32 | Re: Long term database archival |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2006-07-07 00:04:24 | Re: Long term database archival |