On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 16:00 -0500, Erik Jones wrote: > On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> If I'm correct, then for large databases wherein it can > >> take hours to take a base backup, is there anything to be gained by > >> using incrementally updated backups? > > > > If you are certain there are parts of the database not touched at all > > between backups. The only real way to be sure is to take file level > > checksums, or you can trust file dates. Many backup solutions can do > > this for you. > > Wait, um, what? I'm still not clear on why you would want to run a > backup of an already caught up standby server. Sorry, misread your question. While you are running a warm standby config, you will still want to take regular backups for recoverability and DR. These are additional backups, i.e they are not required to maintain the warm standby. You can backup the Primary, or you can backup the Standby, so most people will choose to backup the Standby to reduce the overhead on the Primary. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
