| From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Borislav Ivanov <bivanov(at)atlassian(dot)com> |
| Cc: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Best backup strategy for production systems |
| Date: | 2014-06-20 15:03:09 |
| Message-ID: | CABRT9RAXzUa=_zT_M4Z1vyDuFkpgNCZLUnRTUO5gvK2kKkNu=A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Borislav Ivanov <bivanov(at)atlassian(dot)com> wrote:
> If your database is relatively small, I would recommend
> http://www.pgbarman.org/. It does binary backup and will take care of your
> WAL files. The laster version of pgbarman can also take backups from a slave
> using pgespresso extension. Note that pgbarman runs over streaming
> replication protocol.
I would advise against barman for smaller installations. The setup is
complicated and there are too many moving parts (requires SSH hole
punching in two directions AND a streaming replication connection). I
found WAL-E to be much easier to manage.
Regards,
Marti
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-06-20 15:11:35 | Re: pros/cons of using "synchronous commit=off" - AWS in particular |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-06-20 14:39:04 | Re: pros/cons of using "synchronous commit=off" - AWS in particular |