X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C158211F633C
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:52:13 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 15750-04-2
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:52:12 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from smtp.nildram.co.uk (smtp.nildram.co.uk [195.112.4.54])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F46C11F6613
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:52:11 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [192.168.0.5] (unknown [84.12.26.47])
	by smtp.nildram.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4F06233B9C4; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:52:06 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition?
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: "Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo@sitening.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <42D1F5FC-42DD-49D8-8509-0D68C5B9384C@sitening.com>
References: <42D1F5FC-42DD-49D8-8509-0D68C5B9384C@sitening.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:52:01 +0100
Message-Id: <1143661921.32384.298.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.097 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097]
X-Spam-Score: 0.097
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200603/41
X-Sequence-Number: 3498

On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 09:54 -0600, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:

> 23.3.3.1 - Inline (or In-place) Recovery
> 23.3.3.2 - Remote Recovery or Recovery into a New Cluster
> 23.3.3.3 - Continuous Recovery
> 
> The "Inline Recovery" section would just be the existing 23.3.3  
> repurposed.
> 
> The "Remote/New Cluster Recovery" section would be an edited version  
> of the existing 23.3.3 to eliminate step1 and include the note  
> suggested above.
> 
> The "Continuous Recovery" section would include details of how to  
> continuously apply WAL files to a separate cluster in order to have a  
> true hot standby system.
> 
> Thoughts?

I'd include these as specific cases of the general workflow/checklist.

So, additions rather than refactoring. More words is better for most
people I think.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs