Re: [SPAM] Re: WAL directory size calculation - Mailing list pgsql-general

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: [SPAM] Re: WAL directory size calculation
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwaD7hyCg-zdMhMF6djfz+XzuM0hOSexXW50k7N4orFU0Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [SPAM] Re: WAL directory size calculation  (Moreno Andreo <moreno.andreo@evolu-s.it>)
Responses Re: [SPAM] Re: WAL directory size calculation
List pgsql-general
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Moreno Andreo <moreno.andreo@evolu-s.it> wrote:
​R​
egarding backups I disagree. Files related to database must be consistent to the database itself, so backup must be done saving both database and images. 

​I'd suggest you consider that such binary data be defined as immutable.  Then the only problem you have to worry about is existence - versioning consistency goes away.  You only need focus on the versioning of associations - which remains in the database and is very lightweight.  It is then a separate matter to ensure that all documents you require are accessible given the identifying information stored in the database and linked to the primary records via those versioned associations.

David J.
 

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Moreno Andreo
Date:
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: WAL directory size calculation
Next
From: Francisco Olarte
Date:
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: WAL directory size calculation