Scott Marlowe wrote:
> pg_dump is a perfectly acceptable backup tool, as is PITR. They have
> different ways of operating based on what you need. Trying to make
> PITR act more like pg_dump seems kind of silly to me.
pg_dump is not acceptable to us because of the potential to lose many
hours of valuable data. Why would pg_dump even be relevant to this
discussion? PITR offers a benefit that pg_dump does not, a benefit that
we, and countless other organizations, obviously find useful.
Suggesting that a person who's been managing PG in a commercial setting
since version 6.4 should just use pg_dump as an alternative to PITR is,
well, rather insulting.
That's two people now who have called the idea "silly" without even a
hint of a supporting argument. Why would it be "silly" to improve the
performance of a highly valuable tool set without compromising its
utility? Am I missing something here? That's certainly possible, but
the idea didn't just hatch last night; I've put enough thought into this
to have reason to believe it's more than just "silly".
-Glen
