Il 29/07/2016 15:30, David G. Johnston
ha scritto:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKFQuwaD7hyCg-zdMhMF6djfz+XzuM0hOSexXW50k7N4orFU0Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at
7:08 AM, Moreno Andreo <span dir="ltr"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:moreno.andreo@evolu-s.it" target="_blank">moreno.andreo@evolu-s.it><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">âRâ
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.Â
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">âI'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.Â
You only need focus on the versioning of associations -
which remains in the database and is very lightweight.Â
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.
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">David
J.
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">â
Â
I think you are right on this point, there are only some kind of
bytea that are not immutable, and that's where we store bytea
instead of images (many of these fields have been already
converted to text type, though)
Moreno