What about ZFS Snapshots and send/recv for backup and restore?. For us this is the cleanest approach, since we use it not only for PostgreSQL, but for all the data in our organization.
Of course, the underlying filesystem must be ZFS.
I guess it all depends on your requirements, since this would still cause data loss for the delta time between failure and your last snapshot, but I'm a huge fan of ZFS, and it might be one reason to try out Postgres on FreeBSD, since the only Linux distro that ships ZFS painlessly out of the box is Ubuntu to my knowledge.
I'm also curious how Distributed Replicated Block Device (DRBD) would perform, it would cause obvious latency but perhaps it would be an easier and more efficient solution for a "hot spare" setup than using Postgres native functionality. To my understanding, DRBD can be configured to protect you from hardware IO errors by "detaching" from an erroring disk.
I also don't know if it's a valid point, but I've heard people say that you don't want a fancy CoW filesystem for databases, since much of the functionality offered are things that databases already solve themselves, so you might be sacrificing performance for safety from things that "should not happen"(tm) anyway, depending on how it's set up I guess.
I agree with your overall point. That said: ZFS on Debian is pretty painless. If you have to build/link the kernel, apt will do it all for you, so you don't have to do anything.
On the Xata platform we actually do CoW snapshots and branching at the block device level, which works great.
However we are developing pgstream in order to bring in data and sync it from other Postgres providers. pgstream can also do anonymisation and in the future subsetting. Basically this means that no matter which Postgres service you are using (RDS, CloudSQL, etc) you can get still use Xata for staging and dev branches.
Or btrfs. I also think that filesystem snapshots are underrated backup strategy, assuming your data fits on one disk (which should be the case for almost all applications outside of FAANG).
Why would btrfs or btrfs snapshot require single disks?
My btrfs is combination of different size disks bought over time (3T to 24T) and snapshots works just fine. I've configured it to use raid with 2 copies for data and 3 for metadata.
One important side effect of CGI is the fact that if one route crashes (in a REST api for example) the CGI finishes its execution and nobody is harmed. On the other side, with server daemons, one bug can kill the whole app.
All it needs is a critical mass of users and the right support from some big names; if Go was developed outside Google it probably won't be where it is today.
I'm not a fan of Pascal, though I really enjoyed using Delphi at work many moons ago, to me promoting Lazarus is also a way to tell other IDE developers that Delphi and today Lazarus got things right; it's not just about the language.
I feel sad for reading this, here in Argentina until December 2015 we had a similar state backed plan called Qunita. Now the new right-handed government cancelled the plan without delivering 60k boxes and a judge is trying to burn those arguing insecurity (but none of the 1000s of mothers who received them found any glitch in the boxes).
> I feel sad for reading this, here in Argentina until December 2015 we had a similar state backed plan called Qunita. Now the new right-handed government cancelled the plan without delivering 60k boxes and a judge is trying to burn those arguing insecurity (but none of the 1000s of mothers who received them found any glitch in the boxes).
How do you know that none of the mothers had a problem with them? Are there any studies about this?
On the other hand there are three studies pointing that the box had problems and it was considered unsafe (sharp edges, structure fails with weights under 9kg). [0]
Not to mention that one of the companies tasked to build it was just a small real estate company that thanks to that government program increased their revenue by 15.000.000% (in your face SV unicorns!!).[1]
It's funny that you quote that La Nacion article which is supposedly based on an INTI study that states that the cribs are insecure for babies weighting 9kg+. While the plan is aimed at early stage babies and just the first few months (-6m).
The same report also states that, according to the criteria used, the huge majority of baby products in the segment are insecure.
