Hi Pierre, On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:03:58PM +0000, Pierre Timmermans wrote: > Here is the doc, the sentence that I find misleading is "There are > backups that cannot be used for point-in-time recovery", also > mentioning that they are faster than pg_dumps add to confusion (since > pg_dumps cannot be used for PITR): > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/continuous-archiving.html Yes, it is indeed perfectly possible to use such backups to do a PITR as long as you have a WAL archive able to replay up to the point where you want the replay to happen, so I agree that this is a bit confusing. This part of the documentation is here since the beginning of times, well 6559c4a2 to be exact. Perhaps we would want to reword this sentence as follows: "These are backups that could be used for point-in-time recovery if combined with a WAL archive able to recover up to the wanted recovery point. These backups are typically much faster to backup and restore than pg_dump for large deployments but can result as well in larger backup sizes, so the speed of one method or the other is to evaluate carefully first." I am open to better suggestions of course. -- Michael
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
