| From: | Luca Ferrari <fluca1978(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jason Ralph <jralph(at)affinitysolutions(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Benoit Lobréau <benoit(dot)lobreau(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PG11.2 - wal_level =minimal max_wal_senders = 0 |
| Date: | 2019-09-09 06:48:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAKoxK+4xYDZDb2U4JXX_1wtb4xzbqzp69+02o__=EP-NojkEnA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 2:15 AM Jason Ralph <jralph(at)affinitysolutions(dot)com> wrote:
> I currently have the systems running a parallel pg_dump each night to a separate partition mounted on the VM. Then I perform a full backup of the VM and all mounted drives each night. Would this be affected by disabling wal archiving? I noted that I understood wal archiving was affected in my initial question. But I was not able to see how it could affect my setup. Please school me if I am being naive.
No, if you are using pg_dump you are not affected by archiving.
Archiving is used to backup with tools like pgbackrest, barman, wal-e
and alike. If you are running your database isolated (i.e., no slaves,
no advanced backups), running it without replication level in wal and
using only pg_dump is fine.
Luca
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ayub M | 2019-09-09 07:26:54 | pgbouncer with ldap |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-09 05:03:06 | Re: floating point output |