On 6/9/20 4:35 PM, Peter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 12:34:38PM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>
>
> And that can very well be done properly with an incremental filesystem
> backup software plus some 20 lines of shellscript.
Read the caveats here:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/backup-file.html
>
> Now talking about doing an automated restore, or, having some menu-
> driven solution, or -the worst of all- having a solution that can be
> operated by morons - that's an entirely different matter.
>
> In my understanding, backup is done via pgdump. The archive logs are
> for emergencies (data corruption, desaster), only. And emergencies
> would usually be handled by some professional people who know what
> they have to do.
Read the entire section below, for why WAL's are for backup also. FYI,
if you don't properly set it up then you may not be protected for data
corruption. See PITR.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/continuous-archiving.html
Postgres is used by a wide gamut of people of differing abilities, many
of who appreciate the availability of tested solutions to protect their
data as they are not morons and understand there are people who can make
their life easier.
> This was actually my job as a consultant: to de-mystify technology,
> and make it understandable as an arrangement of well explainable
> pieces of functionality with well-deducible consequences.
Not seeing it.
> But this is no longer respected today; now people are expected to
> *NOT* understand the technology they handle, and instead believe
> in marketing and that it all is very complicated and un-intellegible.
>
>
> cheerio,
> PMc
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com