On 1/29/15 6:25 PM, David Steele wrote:
Safe backups can be done without LSNs provided you are willing to trust
your timestamps.
Which AFAICT simply isn't safe to do at all... except maybe with the manifest
stuff you've talked about?
>FWIW, I personally am very leery of relying on pg_upgrade. It's too
>easy to introduce bugs, doesn't handle all cases, and provides no
>option for going back to your previous version without losing data. I
>much prefer old_version -- londiste --> new_version, and then doing
>the upgrade by reversing the direction of replication.
I think the official docs need to stick with options that are core?
I don't think we have any such requirement. IIRC the docs used to talk about
using logical replication before we had pg_upgrade (and may have actually
called out Slony).
I avoid pg_upgrade wherever it is practical. However, sometimes it
really is the best option.
Certainly. I think what we should be doing is spelling out the available
options (with pros/cons) so that users can decide what's best.
>I also don't entirely trust PITR backups. It's too easy to
>accidentally break them in subtle ways.
Agreed in general, but I've been doing a lot of work to make this not be
true anymore.
:)
I'd love to see all this stuff Just Work (tm), but I don't think we're there
yet, and I'm not really sure how we can get there.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
