4 ms·
Litestream is simpler for backups/disaster recovery. pg_dump -> S3 gives you a snapshot, but you then have to start worrying about time windows between backups
by layoric 4y ago
Litestream is simpler for backups/disaster recovery. pg_dump -> S3 gives you a snapshot, but you then have to start worrying about time windows between backups and restore processes. Litestream does per second backups enabling point in time restores with 2 commands. Every time you want to upgrade Postgres you are going to have to manage that yourself, again, pg_dump -> S3 and back with possible issues around versions of pg_dump etc. I'm not trying to say these are insurmountable or even big issues, they are just trade offs.
For the right use cases, SQLite's embedded nature can provide simplicity other offerings can't. Is Postgres able fill more use cases? Absolutely, it is an amazing piece of software.
- tpetry 4y agoPgBackRest is working like Litestream to archive the WAL files, and for PG you can get those tools for more than a decade! Litestream is nothing novel. But you can‘t get it down to 1s, the minimum is 30s.
- layoric 4y agoI wasn't aware of PgBackRest, something will definitely keep in mind when offering alternatives to managed services, thank you! 30s is perfectly respectable, and something I will definitely start testing out as a sidecar container to Postgres. edit: It doesn't look like the use of PgBackRest composes as well as something like Litestream, eg it looks like PgBackRest has to be baked into the image running Postgres as opposed to a separate process monitoring changes to files like Litestream. Again, not huge issues, but definitely not as simple. Still very useful tech I'm glad you mentioned it, but a big draw card of SQLite is the simplicity of use.