On 1/16/22 01:23, Mladen Gogala wrote:
On 1/14/22 16:00, David G. Johnston wrote:
I still don't really understand what is so great about it. About its
only redeeming feature is a declaration that "it is in core" and that
newcomers can just default to it without thinking. I'd rather just
play favorites and write "use pgbackrest" in our documentation. Or
some hybrid approach where we don't just pick one but instead guide
people to the community solutions that are out there. I don't think I
really want the people responsible for core to spend time on writing
end-user backup tooling. Their time is much more valuably spent
working on the core product.
David J.
Well, the "without thinking" part of your post can be rephrased as "ease
of use". Do database administrators really need to think about which
backup software to use? What kind of knowledge will such an evaluation
provide? All commercial databases have some form of backup software
included into the core database. After all, backup and restore are
extremely important functions which IMHO should be provided along with
the database software.
--
Mladen Gogala
Database Consultant
Tel: (347) 321-1217
https://dbwhisperer.wordpress.com
Just to avoid any misunderstanding. I am perfectly happy using the
backup/restore with pg_dump and we use it for at least a decade with
success for our need of backups.
My question is really in the context of WAL archiving and preparing a
slave instance with a base 'non-exclusive' backup from a script (to be
precise, on reboot of the server running the slave instance) since the
exclusive way is deprecated.
Thx for all your valuable comments
--
Issa
