> I am not sure what you call discrete / continuous.
>> pgBackRest doesn't seem to allow the latter: recovery to any point in
>> time, only to some discrete moments. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>
> Are you talking about PITR ?
Yes. I had the impression, that with pgBackRest you do backups
occasionally, and as a result have a fixed number of states you can
restore to. But it appears they both keep the WAL files. So you can
restore to any point in time.
By the way, do/can they both use streaming to receive WAL records? Or
streaming is only for standby servers. For backups you have only
file-based log shipping?
Then, I suppose they both don't support partial PITR
(http://docs.pgbarman.org/release/2.4/#scope), where there are
standalone backups that extends to points in time for which there are
no WAL files. I'm not sure if this matters, but I assume that it might
be effective in terms of disk space.
Like, base backups + WAL files covering the last month, and a couple
of standalone backups for a couple of months before that. Compared to
base backups + WAL files covering the same period of time.
> But does it make sense to use repmgr ?
By that you mean, why use repmgr, that targets specifically PostgreSQL
in place of Pacemaker + Corosync which are more general pieces of
software?
> I use corosync & pacemaker with PAF for HA so I never had to use repmgr.
I'd like to be able to handle db failure as fast as possible. Ideally,
automatically. Which probably means either repmgr, or corosync +
pacemaker + PAF. Is that what you mean by HA here? Or at least, have a
running instance I can switch to manually. Which means, for example,
pgBackRest's streaming replication.
Regards,
Yuri Kanivetsky
