On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 06:52, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, once we have PITR, will anyone want incremental backups?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Martin Marques wrote:
> > On Jue 13 Feb 2003 16:38, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Patrick Macdonald wrote:
> > > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > Someone at Red Hat is working on point-in-time recovery, also known as
> > > > > incremental backups.
> > > >
> > > > PITR and incremental backup are different beasts. PITR deals with a
> > > > backup + logs. Incremental backup deals with a full backup + X
> > > > smaller/incremental backups.
> > > >
> > > > So... it doesn't look like anyone is working on incremental backup at the
> > > > moment.
> > >
> > > But why would someone want incremental backups compared to PITR? The
> > > backup would be mixture of INSERTS, UPDATES, and DELETES, right? Seems
> > > pretty weird. :-)
> >
> > Good backup systems, such as Informix (it's the one I used) doesn't do a query
> > backup, but a pages backup. What I mean is that it looks for pages in the
> > system that has changed from the las full backup and backs them up.
> >
> > That's how an incremental backup works. PITR is another thing, which is even
> > more important. :-)
I do imagine for some people it will register high on their list.
--
Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net>
Copeland Computer Consulting
