Greetings, * Ron (ronljohnsonjr@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On 6/2/20 1:30 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >* Ron (ronljohnsonjr@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >>On 6/2/20 4:59 AM, Grigory Smolkin wrote: > >>>On 6/2/20 11:22 AM, Ron wrote: > >>>>The inability to do a point-in-time restoration of a *single* database > >>>>in a multi-db cluster is a serious -- and fundamental -- missing feature > >>>>(never to be implemented because of the fundamental design). > >>>It is possible via 3rd party tools like pg_probackup and pgbackrest. > >>pgbackrest does *not* support PITR recovery of individual databases into > >>*new* database names in the same cluster (so that the end user can have both > >>the current database and an old version at the same time). > >No, nothing does as PG doesn't support it as we have one WAL stream for > >the entire cluster. > > Right. Making WAL files specific to a database should be high on the list > of priorities. That's almost certainly not going to happen. I'm not aware of anyone pursuing that nor has there been any discussion on hackers. In other words, I wouldn't bet on that being something that's going to happen as there's seemingly very little interest in it among those who are developing PG and it'd be an awful lot of work for what seems to be very little actual gain. > >Generally speaking, I discourage having lots of databases under one PG > >cluster for exactly these kinds of reasons. > > It's just two... :) > > > PG's individual clusters are relatively lightweight, after all. > > But require a new port, and Enterprises have Processes that must be followed. Sure they do. Automate them. :) Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
