| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Achilleas Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Backup solution over unreliable network |
| Date: | 2018-11-30 16:41:54 |
| Message-ID: | f185987a-6a38-055e-d4e7-fe53db824096@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On 11/30/18 10:29 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Achilleas Mantzios (achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com) wrote:
>> On 30/11/18 2:06 μ.μ., Stephen Frost wrote:
>>>> - I have only read the best reviews about PgBackRest, can PgBackRest address those issues?
>>> Glad to hear you've read good reviews about pgbackrest. As for
<...>
> We've also considered supporting archive-mode=always and being able to
> have the standby also push WAL and while we may support that in the
> future, I'd say it's farther down on the list than multi-repo support.
> As I recall, David Steele also had some specific technical concerns
> around how to handle two systems pushing into the same WAL archive.
> Having archive-mode=always be allowed if it's going to an independent
> repo is an interesting thought though and might be simpler to do.
The issue here is ensuring that only one system is writing to the
repository at a time. This is easy enough if there is a dedicated
repo-host but is much harder if the repo is on something like S3 or NFS.
Using independent repos might work, but we'd need a way to ensure the
configuration doesn't get broken.
Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2018-11-30 16:50:27 | Re: Backup solution over unreliable network |
| Previous Message | Achilleas Mantzios | 2018-11-30 16:24:40 | Re: Backup solution over unreliable network |