| From: | "drum(dot)lucas(at)gmail(dot)com" <drum(dot)lucas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Incremental Refresh - PostgreSQL 9.2 |
| Date: | 2016-02-23 22:25:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAE_gQfXDYSJBZppMW2T8HNF1-K2dPfsg8aOz0g_73GfCgmu6UA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
>
>
> You cannot accomplish incremental updates if your choice of tool is
> pg_dump. The only way to do a true incremental would be to rely upon
> something like rsync on the data directory while the master server is
> offline.
>
> So, assuming that is not an option, you should probably look at the
> various true replication solutions that are available and see which of
> those might serve as an alternative.
>
> David J.
>
>
The point is: I don't want a slave server - I want a full copy from my
MASTER server.
So replication wouldn't be a nice solution...
Can I do a rsync from /data folder from my SLAVE into my TEST server?
To do that, both postgres process should be stopped, right?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Whitney | 2016-02-23 22:42:14 | Re: Incremental Refresh - PostgreSQL 9.2 |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-02-23 22:14:26 | Re: Incremental Refresh - PostgreSQL 9.2 |