| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Moreno Andreo <moreno(dot)andreo(at)evolu-s(dot)it> |
| Cc: | "FarjadFarid(ChkNet)" <farjad(dot)farid(at)checknetworks(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [SPAM] Re: WAL directory size calculation |
| Date: | 2016-07-29 13:30:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaD7hyCg-zdMhMF6djfz+XzuM0hOSexXW50k7N4orFU0Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Moreno Andreo <moreno(dot)andreo(at)evolu-s(dot)it>
wrote:
> R
> egarding backups I disagree. Files related to database must be consistent
> to the database itself, so backup must be done saving both database and
> images.
>
I'd suggest you consider that such binary data be defined as immutable.
Then the only problem you have to worry about is existence - versioning
consistency goes away. You only need focus on the versioning of
associations - which remains in the database and is very lightweight. It
is then a separate matter to ensure that all documents you require are
accessible given the identifying information stored in the database and
linked to the primary records via those versioned associations.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Francisco Olarte | 2016-07-29 15:26:55 | Re: [SPAM] Re: WAL directory size calculation |
| Previous Message | Moreno Andreo | 2016-07-29 13:30:08 | Re: [SPAM] Re: WAL directory size calculation |