From: | Glen Parker <glenebob(at)nwlink(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: I don't want to back up index files |
Date: | 2009-03-11 23:57:56 |
Message-ID: | 49B85004.6000909@nwlink.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> pg_dump is a perfectly acceptable backup tool, as is PITR. They have
> different ways of operating based on what you need. Trying to make
> PITR act more like pg_dump seems kind of silly to me.
pg_dump is not acceptable to us because of the potential to lose many
hours of valuable data. Why would pg_dump even be relevant to this
discussion? PITR offers a benefit that pg_dump does not, a benefit that
we, and countless other organizations, obviously find useful.
Suggesting that a person who's been managing PG in a commercial setting
since version 6.4 should just use pg_dump as an alternative to PITR is,
well, rather insulting.
That's two people now who have called the idea "silly" without even a
hint of a supporting argument. Why would it be "silly" to improve the
performance of a highly valuable tool set without compromising its
utility? Am I missing something here? That's certainly possible, but
the idea didn't just hatch last night; I've put enough thought into this
to have reason to believe it's more than just "silly".
-Glen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-03-12 00:20:06 | Re: I don't want to back up index files |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-03-11 23:38:11 | Re: I don't want to back up index files |