Andy - I guess that uploading your WAL to S3 at least avoids the turmoil of running your database within a VPC that would definitely be an advantage.
I had imagined that replaying the WAL to get caught up from a baseline backup would be prohibitively slow versus simply snapshotting, but having the ability to go to a specific point in time hasn’t been a concern for us.
Thanks for the reply!
Bill
From: Andy Lau <alau@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 3:04 PM To: Joseph Kregloh <jkregloh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: WILLIAM MITCHELL <bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Best practices for cloning DB servers Thanks for the responses. Bill - We currently use wal-e to upload our WAL logs to S3. We actually don't keep our logs around for that long, so we don't have a problem with the size of our logs or snapshots.
I think we're going to go with our current solution, but during our process of cloning, point the restore command to the WAL log location of the source PostgreSQL, and point the archive command to a different location in S3. We already have a wrapper around
wal-e that sets the S3 prefix, so it's easy to extend it to a separate wrapper for restore vs archive.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Joseph Kregloh
<jkregloh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|