| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "J(dot) Roeleveld" <joost(at)antarean(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Incrementally Updated Backups |
| Date: | 2010-09-12 13:54:28 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinEOgx6ibffd4e5QSNBfPKwzxVUx6PbYO+AgQqs@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> Nice in theory.
>> Except backups can not be fully trusted if they rely on database recovery
>> mechanics as part of the restore process.
>
>> How certain can you be that the data you have in your backup will always
>> result to being able to recover 100%?
>
> If you don't want to trust our recovery, that is your decision. We are
> telling you others do trust it.
Agreed. If you can't trust your database to recover from a power
failure, you can't trust your database, period.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | adi hirschtein | 2010-09-12 14:02:35 | Re: Monitoring Object access |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-09-12 13:51:02 | Re: Incrementally Updated Backups |