3 ms·

hey - thanks for this. it makes things much simpler. This then begs the question - can this run on AWS Lambda and archive to s3 ? Because wal-e + s3 is killer.

• gbartolini 10y ago
  Some food for thought. These are the first cases that came to my mind: 1) Zero data loss backups (as far as I know, Barman is the first backup tool for PostgreSQL to implement it) 2) Monitoring ('check' command) 3) Hybrid WAL shipping (archiving + streaming) 4) Incremental backups 5) Faster recovery time (backups are stored as plain files, you can have incremental recovery and you can use 'get-wal') - also we are working on parallel backup and recovery 6) Backup from a standby In terms of management, Barman is very low maintenance, but the outcomes you get are relevant. If you have multiple PostgreSQL servers, you can concentrate backups in a single Barman host. Every server can have its own settings allowing you to implement hybrid solutions (you can mix versions, backup methods such as rsync or pg_basebackup, WAL archiving, WAL streaming, and so on). As said above by "amenonsen", with hook scripts you can also relay WAL files to S3 very easily, and create a backup of your backup. That is why I think having a separate backup server has more pros than cons. I hope this helps.
  • sandGorgon 10y ago
    thanks - this was very useful!