Re: [SPAM] Re: WAL directory size calculation

Moreno Andreo <moreno.andreo@xxxxxxxxxx> · Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:48:10 +0200



    Il 29/07/2016 15:30, David G. Johnston
      ha scritto:

    
        On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at
            7:08 AM, Moreno Andreo <moreno.andreo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

        
                    R
                    egarding backups I disagree. Files related to
                    database must be consistent to the database itself,
                    so backup must be done saving both database and
                    images. 
                
            
              I'd
                suggest you consider that such binary data be defined as
                immutable.  Then the only problem you have to worry
                about is existence - versioning consistency goes away. 
                You only need focus on the versioning of associations -
                which remains in the database and is very lightweight. 
                It is then a separate matter to ensure that all
                documents you require are accessible given the
                identifying information stored in the database and
                linked to the primary records via those versioned
                associations.
            
            
              David
                J.
            
            
    I think you are right on this point, there are only some kind of
      bytea that are not immutable, and that's where we store bytea
      instead of images (many of these fields have been already
      converted to text type, though)
    Moreno