> I am not sure what you call discrete / continuous. >> pgBackRest doesn't seem to allow the latter: recovery to any point in >> time, only to some discrete moments. Correct me if I'm wrong. > > > Are you talking about PITR ? Yes. I had the impression, that with pgBackRest you do backups occasionally, and as a result have a fixed number of states you can restore to. But it appears they both keep the WAL files. So you can restore to any point in time. By the way, do/can they both use streaming to receive WAL records? Or streaming is only for standby servers. For backups you have only file-based log shipping? Then, I suppose they both don't support partial PITR (http://docs.pgbarman.org/release/2.4/#scope), where there are standalone backups that extends to points in time for which there are no WAL files. I'm not sure if this matters, but I assume that it might be effective in terms of disk space. Like, base backups + WAL files covering the last month, and a couple of standalone backups for a couple of months before that. Compared to base backups + WAL files covering the same period of time. > But does it make sense to use repmgr ? By that you mean, why use repmgr, that targets specifically PostgreSQL in place of Pacemaker + Corosync which are more general pieces of software? > I use corosync & pacemaker with PAF for HA so I never had to use repmgr. I'd like to be able to handle db failure as fast as possible. Ideally, automatically. Which probably means either repmgr, or corosync + pacemaker + PAF. Is that what you mean by HA here? Or at least, have a running instance I can switch to manually. Which means, for example, pgBackRest's streaming replication. Regards, Yuri Kanivetsky
