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 AE4869DCA32 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:38:25 -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 68526-06 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:38:24 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2FF9DCA30 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:38:22 -0400 (AST) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id DA3C633A69; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 05:38:21 +0100 (MET) From: Christopher Browne X-Newsgroups: pgsql.docs Subject: Re: Online backup vs Continuous backup Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:33:07 -0500 Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <200512261755.jBQHt5L21116@candle.pha.pa.us> <10947.1135622655@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org X-message-flag: Outlook is rather hackable, isn't it? X-Home-Page: http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/ X-Affero: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp, berkeley-unix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:rksftB1pn4lLDg9VwFK12oQYnyo= To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.522 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.291, INFO_TLD=0.813] X-Spam-Score: 0.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/42 X-Sequence-Number: 3390 > Bruce Momjian writes: >> I suggest the following patch to rename our capability "Continuous >> Backup". > > This doesn't seem like an improvement. "Online backup" is the standard > terminology AFAIK. There's something ambiguous about it, in view that there are two useful points in time for a backup to be "as of," namely: a) The start time (which is what pg_dump does), and b) The end time (which I believe is not uncommon with other systems). PITR is obviously more like b)... -- wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','gmail.com'). http://linuxfinances.info/info/slony.html Keeping instructions and operands in different memories saves .20 (.09) microseconds.