On 11/27/18 4:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:45:04AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: >> If you don't consider your recovery scripts and your backup scripts to >> be related then I've really got to wonder how you're regularly testing >> your backups to make sure that they're actually valid. > > Base backups can be perfectly self-contained as long as they include all > the WAL segments needed to recover up to the end-of-backup record. > That's what pg_basebackup does with its default options > (--wal-method=stream in particular).
This is true, of course, but it misses one of the major benefits of file-level backups which is PITR. >> If you aren't regularly testing your backups then I've got little >> sympathy. > > Fortunately they do, hundreds of time on a daily basis ;) Nice! >> To be clear, pgbackrest doesn't have any dependency here- but it, like >> all of the other 3rd party backup solutions and any restore solution >> that a user has come up with, are going to have to be changed to deal >> with the changes in how recovery works, so this is a good time to make >> these changes. > > My point is that base backups do not have a mandatory dependency with > recovery.conf all the time as they can perfectly be restored if they are > standalone backups. I can see a dependency with recovery.conf once you > have a base backup which needs to be fed with WAL segments from an > external archive, or when using a base backup to create a standby. If you want to do PITR -- which is the default in most situations -- then some interaction with recovery.conf is needed. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a prominent HA or backup solution that doesn't do so. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
