On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 17:07 -0500, Tim Holloway wrote: > > However, I think your information on PostgreSQL is a bit dated.
Nope > PostgreSQL has been sweating the details on transactions for a LONG time > now. Like the expensive commercial DBMS's, it supports transaction > logging that can be used to ensure database integrity across > backup/restore operations. How is that integrated with PostgerSQL backup tools? > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/backup-online.html "The log describes every change made to the database's data files. This log exists primarily for crash-safety purposes: if the system crashes, the database can be restored to consistency by "replaying" the log entries made since the last checkpoint." That says nothing about backing up and restoring a database. A log is not the same as a backup. Seems a log can be used to facilitate a backup, but its different. > I've been doing backups, migrations, and occasional disaster-recovery > restores on PostgreSQL for a number of years now, and unlike some > overpriced commercial products, it has never given me an un-restorable > backup. What tool did you use to restore the backup? Can you easily restore from server A to server B across the network, directly? > I've been especially appreciative on that score lately, since > I've been doing a lot with DB/2, and THEY can't even do a simple > backup/restore across CPU architectures (i5/Linux), not even counting > how tedious a basic database clone operation can be. You might be blown away with what you can do with Firebird wrt to backing up. Its also gotten even better with nbackup, much less what gbak is already capable of. > There's no shortage of good SQL DBMS options available under Linux, both > full open-source and commercial community edition There actually is, and more so when you start moving toward enterprise space. Most times even in FOSS you ask, and people will say MySQL and PostgreSQL. Firebird won't be mentioned, nor others. Also when I started with Firebird, I was on Windows still. Back in the early 2000's, trying to install PostgreSQL on windows was well, not really an option back then. One other reason that despite PostgreSQL being on the Cobalt, I had to use InterBase. > In fact, SQLite is sort of "built in" to most modern distros these > days, since a number of system utilities use it for their own asset > control databases (plus, of course, it's built into Android). Apache > Derby is another way to get up and running SQL quick. Sure, but I do not believe SQLite is standards complaint, not really a good starting point for learning. > About the only SQL DBMS I wouldn't recommend is MS-Access. Although I > don't recommend waiting around for MS-Access For Linux[TM] in any event. MS-Access isn't really a true database. I am not sure what would best describe it. Most database have no means for you to develop a GUI. But thats part of Access. Can't really even make an access db without some sort of GUI. There might be ways but most using Access made an interface in Access to their Access DB. Along those same lines, I have had horrors in the past with Paradox and FoxPro. Learning lessons that taught me things begin and end with your RDBMS, its the core, choose it wisely :) -- William L. Thomson Jr. Obsidian-Studios, Inc. http://www.obsidian-studios.com This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive http://marc.info/?l=jaxlug-list&r=1&w=2 RSS Feed http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml Unsubscribe [email protected]
