On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 06:52, Bruce Momjian wrote: > OK, once we have PITR, will anyone want incremental backups? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Martin Marques wrote: > > On Jue 13 Feb 2003 16:38, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Patrick Macdonald wrote: > > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > Someone at Red Hat is working on point-in-time recovery, also known as > > > > > incremental backups. > > > > > > > > PITR and incremental backup are different beasts. PITR deals with a > > > > backup + logs. Incremental backup deals with a full backup + X > > > > smaller/incremental backups. > > > > > > > > So... it doesn't look like anyone is working on incremental backup at the > > > > moment. > > > > > > But why would someone want incremental backups compared to PITR? The > > > backup would be mixture of INSERTS, UPDATES, and DELETES, right? Seems > > > pretty weird. :-) > > > > Good backup systems, such as Informix (it's the one I used) doesn't do a query > > backup, but a pages backup. What I mean is that it looks for pages in the > > system that has changed from the las full backup and backs them up. > > > > That's how an incremental backup works. PITR is another thing, which is even > > more important. :-)
I do imagine for some people it will register high on their list. -- Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copeland Computer Consulting ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
