Re: PgBackRest question?

Please help me on below recovery scenario, if any one is using pgBackRest.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:36 PM, chiru r <chirupg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Thanks,I am thinking about a specific recovery case.
>
> Lets assume Heavy transactional system we configured.
> It is generating WAL 2000/hr and recycling automatically in pg_wal
> directory.
>
> QA :
>
> Sunday -- 11 PM -- Full backup done.
> Monday -- 11 PM -- Differential Backup done
> Tuesday-- 10 AM incremental backup is done
> Note : Every 2 hrs incremental backup scheduled on system.
>
> For example, if we want to restore to DEV server:
>
> We want to recover database as of 11:30 AM Tuesday on DEV server using QA
> backups.
>
> Is it possible to restore using pgbackrest tool for this scenario?.
>
> How pgbackrest keeps track of transactions since the last backup? Where it
> stores transaction information for recovery ?.
>
> Thanks,
> Chiru
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> * chiru r (chirupg(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> > The pgbackrest.conf configuration file has the option *repo-path* to
>> mention
>> > the mount point to store the backups and wal archive files.
>>
>> That's correct, that's where the backups and the WAL are stored.
>>
>> > We are looking for an option, Can we store online backups and wal
>> archive
>> > files separately in different directories?.
>>
>> That's an interesting requirement- why would you need them to be
>> different directories?
>>
>> I'll point out that PostgreSQL backups absolutely require the WAL in
>> order to be able to be restored (at least the WAL generated during the
>> backup) in order to reach consistency. If the two were to be seperated,
>> you'd probably still want the backups to 'stand alone' and that would
>> mean duplicating all of the WAL which is created during the backup and
>> storing it with the backup.
>>
>> The first question really is why you're looking for this though..? If
>> there's a good use-case for it, we could look at adding that it as an
>> option.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>
>