Message-ID: <4F983755.8020003@d2.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:41:41 -0700
From: amador alvarez <aalvarez@d2.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.19
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Backup/disaster recovery and bandwidth (long)
References: <da3b784d-86db-4b60-a6cd-149efaa58c0e@zimbra.int.journyx.com>
	<8D77E0D1-4AA7-4892-9508-58B7F21DDB18@elevated-dev.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D77E0D1-4AA7-4892-9508-58B7F21DDB18@elevated-dev.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I  mean bucardo (even though there are more tools like this one) just 
for the replication stuff and the hot database backup only for the 
backup stuff and only one bounce is needed to turn the archiving on, you 
do not need to turn anything at all down during the backup.

A.A

On 04/25/2012 10:23 AM, Scott Ribe wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Scott Whitney wrote:
>
>> I believe, then, that when I restart server #3 (the standby who is replicating), he'll say "oh, geez, I was down, let me catch up on all that crap that happened while I was out of the loop," he'll replay the WAL files that were written while he was down, and then he'll catch back up.
>>
>> Does this sound like a viable option? Or does someone have additional suggestions?
> Perfectly viable. However, the WAL files must exist for this to happen. So you need to set wal_keep_segments appropriately, or set up WAL archiving.
>
> Note that you could even provide a more up-to-date database for your people to work with. If the testbed is nearly up to date, then an rsync to update it would take very little time. So you could shut down the replica, rsync, and bring the replica back up.
>
>