search

timescale / timescaledb-wale

Dockerized WAL-E with an HTTP API
Apache License 2.0
21 stars 9 forks source link

Remove dependency on TimescaleDB image and support base backups via HTTP API #2

Closed erimatnor closed 6 years ago

erimatnor commented 6 years ago

The WAL-E image previously had a dependency on the TimescaleDB container, which had to be customized to work with WAL-E. Further, the containers were setup to synchronize startup via a lock file to support restore from a base backup. This was hard to configure and was error prone.

The WAL-E image is now greatly simplified, essentially used bundling WAL-E with a HTTP API. The API has been expanded to allow triggering base backups via HTTP.

Restore is no longer handled explicitly by the image. This is better handled by the user for their particular setup. For instance, base backup restores are easily implemented in Kubernetes init containers that run before the main Postgres/TimescaleDB container.

doomsower commented 6 years ago

Any chance to see this merged? Also, while it's not merged and pushed to registry, do you think it's safe to use it directly from your fork?

RobAtticus commented 6 years ago

Thanks for this @erimatnor , we'll also need to update the docs.

@doomsower - Sorry this slipped through the cracks with some other stuff going on, but it should get merged soon.

erimatnor commented 6 years ago

@RobAtticus @davidkohn88 Btw, note that I set the default image name to timescale/wal-e in the Makefile. We've pushed this image to timescale/timescaledb-wale before but I think the new default image name makes more sense since there is no longer a dependency in TimescaleDB (i.e., this image is mostly just dockerized WAL-E). Also, I think it would be awkward to prefix everything with timescaledb for no obvious reason when we are already namespacing with timescale/.

We can still push to the old name for compatibility or we can just deprecate it. We might also consider renaming this repo. I don't think it should be a major problem since I don't think this is a widely used repo, at least not yet.

Thoughts?

RobAtticus commented 6 years ago

I am fine with renaming the docker image to what you suggested. Not sure if renaming this repo is a good idea since it could be confused as our fork of wal-e rather than a dockerized wal-e that is useful for timescaledb.