Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2007-09-08 kell 21:15, kirjutas Apoc Sagdiyev:
> > C. 'backup _is_ replication' is also true
> >
> > ----------
> > Hannu
>
> It is useless to speak with a person like you
Oh, you think that _I_ am "scandinavian" ?? Never thought about that
possibility ;P
If speaking with me is useless to you, then don't.
> about the diffrence between Backup and Replications.
> Both Things having diffrent Concepts and Approaches, but for you it is all the same.
by Capitalising these Nouns you really make them look like some Big
Concepts that are Beyond Understanding Of Mere Mortals.
> What should i say? Thadts the typically scandinavian Fishheadnature. A
> Fish is a Fish. (anyway if one is a Wale and next is a Shark).
The reason I have been so patient with you is that your question and
writing style suggests that you are still quite young, probably no more
that 17 to 19, and also I thought that you were looking for a solution
to your problem, not just trying to look smart or pushing your latest
great idea.
<meat>
What I was trying to tell you, is that in order to have a backup that
can actually be used quickly in case of failure on master db, you need
your backup to be in form of replica (that is one meaning of "backup
_is_ replication").
If you had your backup as a week-old base backup + a set of WAL files,
it can take days to bring the replacement machine up, as both unpacking
the base backup and especially replaying the WAL files take time.
</meat>
> I guess, the next Thing you will say is: Nobody was on the Moon and the
> 9/11 Incident was the Work of George W. Bush Junior itself and Santa
> Claus will be the next President of the United States.
No! Actually I'm wearing my tin hat right now and I Never say Anything
about My Suspicions about 9/11 on Internet in fear of Echelon catching
and filing me.
---------------
Hannu
