Hi,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 06:42:20PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > <lucas> mapreri: yes, but it would also be useful to switch to another
> > dump
> > format
+1
(as abre minimum enhancement xz compression would be sensible)
> - udd-bugs.sql.xz, with only the bugs data (both archived and
> unarchived -- Andreas Tille was the main user of that -- is this still
> needed?)
While I'm using it in a daily cron job I have the impression that this
method is a bit weak and bugs get lost (for whatever reason - I had no
time to track this down). Since I'm using it on a testing host anyway a
monthly (may be weekly) sync with full UDD might be more sensible than
sticking to this method. So if it helps we could drop udd-bugs.sql.xz.
Please ping me before you remove it, thanks.
> 1) what is the rationale for the public UDD mirror. Is there a way this
> could be provided from Debian infrastructure, for example by
> whitelisting specific hosts that need UDD access? Is there something
> here that could be acceptable for DSA (Cced)?
My mirror is to develop and test new features.
> 2) what is the rationale for the more frequent dumps. It's currently
> being dumped once a day. It's never going to be "in sync" with the
> live instance, unfortunately.
I could live with a daily dump
> 3) Would dumps in "custom format" (pg_dump -Fc) work for you? they allow
> parallel restore with pg_restore.
I see no reason why this should not work.
> 4) Could some tables be excluded from the dumps?
Hmmm, I'd prefer a full dump (except of the data you consider private).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150329170807.ga18...@an3as.eu
