4 ms·

I'm slightly confused, is this the same as the existing point-in-time restore that's available for other RDS instances? Edit: Main difference seems to be new c

I'm slightly confused, is this the same as the existing point-in-time restore that's available for other RDS instances? Edit: Main difference seems to be new cluster vs. in place.

coenhyde 8y ago
Similar but from what I understand it allows granularity down to seconds instead of minutes and new cluster provisioning in minutes rather than potentially hours.
- estsauver 8y ago
  Speed of new cluster provisioning is neat, amazon-rds console currently shows the option to do a point of time restore down to the second. Maybe that's actually not available already and they're truncating to the latest backup? Edit: I guess it's also nice that it's in place. Some people probably don't have the flexibility to easily point applications at a new cluster in a repeatable way, so that may help folks prevent down time.
scrollaway 8y ago
No; look at the screenshots. You can pick any point in time given the window you request.
- estsauver 8y ago
  I see that option in well already for AWS-RDS postgres point in time restore.
- manigandham 8y ago
  That usually what point in time restores allow, by using snapshots as a base and WAL since then.
easel 8y ago
I believe this is special because it pauses, backtracks and resumes your existing cluster. No new cluster provisioning time or configuration changes
grogers 8y ago
I think the main difference is that restore will create a new DB instance, whereas backtrack updates the state of the DB instance in place. It is also probably a lot faster than restoring.
- awgupta 8y ago
  You're right - it is a lot faster. That's because we don't change any data blocks. we just mark a portion of the log to be ignored.
longwave 8y ago
Point in time restores to the last daily snapshot and replays logs since that snapshot; this can take quite some time (hours) if your database has a lot of writes, especially if the snapshot was 23 hours ago. The blog post doesn't quite make it clear but I would hope that backtracking is somewhat quicker than this method.

I'm slightly confused, is this the same as the existing point-in-time restore that's available for other RDS instances? Edit: Main difference seems to be new cluster vs. in place.

coenhyde 8y ago

Similar but from what I understand it allows granularity down to seconds instead of minutes and new cluster provisioning in minutes rather than potentially hours.

estsauver 8y ago
Speed of new cluster provisioning is neat, amazon-rds console currently shows the option to do a point of time restore down to the second. Maybe that's actually not available already and they're truncating to the latest backup? Edit: I guess it's also nice that it's in place. Some people probably don't have the flexibility to easily point applications at a new cluster in a repeatable way, so that may help folks prevent down time.

scrollaway 8y ago

No; look at the screenshots. You can pick any point in time given the window you request.

estsauver 8y ago
I see that option in well already for AWS-RDS postgres point in time restore.
manigandham 8y ago
That usually what point in time restores allow, by using snapshots as a base and WAL since then.

easel 8y ago

I believe this is special because it pauses, backtracks and resumes your existing cluster. No new cluster provisioning time or configuration changes

grogers 8y ago

I think the main difference is that restore will create a new DB instance, whereas backtrack updates the state of the DB instance in place. It is also probably a lot faster than restoring.

awgupta 8y ago
You're right - it is a lot faster. That's because we don't change any data blocks. we just mark a portion of the log to be ignored.

longwave 8y ago

Point in time restores to the last daily snapshot and replays logs since that snapshot; this can take quite some time (hours) if your database has a lot of writes, especially if the snapshot was 23 hours ago. The blog post doesn't quite make it clear but I would hope that backtracking is somewhat quicker than this method.