You would back up the WAL as well. However there might be a lot of WAL to apply, as data gets added then deleted or changed. A differential backup (see Note) solves this somewhat for large databases by just backing up…
I agree, Postgres having its own storage subsystem would be wrong. Fortunately the PG philosophy is to leave what the OS does best to the OS, so its unlikely that situation would arise. However, a middle ground of being…
> I really would like to see bi-temporal table support eventually come to PG > Is anybody aware somebody working on that for PG? Not that I am aware of. Postgres is a fantastic database, and with zero licensing…
You would back up the WAL as well. However there might be a lot of WAL to apply, as data gets added then deleted or changed. A differential backup (see Note) solves this somewhat for large databases by just backing up…
I agree, Postgres having its own storage subsystem would be wrong. Fortunately the PG philosophy is to leave what the OS does best to the OS, so its unlikely that situation would arise. However, a middle ground of being…
> I really would like to see bi-temporal table support eventually come to PG > Is anybody aware somebody working on that for PG? Not that I am aware of. Postgres is a fantastic database, and with zero licensing…