Message-ID: <2ae3d790ba228a62c97a40a419c3d05890952b11.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: Running rsync backups in pg15
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Murthy Nunna <mnunna@fnal.gov>, Pgsql-admin
	 <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:00:33 +0100
In-Reply-To: 
 <DM8PR09MB6677B05D9D3C83518E9C27E8B85F2@DM8PR09MB6677.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
	<CANzqJaCr-id_4YotukPeH=rHCELS58Z63FoEbkNFBSqzjGMueQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <01000193082d1077-34d9461d-49e4-44ef-b83a-0201df4fc0ba-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	 <DM8PR09MB6677705AE81436745B4487F6B85C2@DM8PR09MB6677.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
	 <CANzqJaA02zeZTUB=uFPfxgJ+=NUUy1cQP3E0=3u0ssHdL6qkMA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <DM8PR09MB6677F19E2DDD6E18A4FDE2D6B85D2@DM8PR09MB6677.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
	 <CANzqJaBZ+j2o8jQ8Hs63AQbAZfiFcyApa5d212A1LNkagqyrGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <DM8PR09MB66779BE5DA062DFB7257BE96B85D2@DM8PR09MB6677.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
	 <bf3a4125-378c-4085-af26-e211c758e8ed@oss.nttdata.com>
	 <DM8PR09MB667799AD3A5C891C2264A3AFB85E2@DM8PR09MB6677.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
	 <6c1b0bc55c9420d84823dd6feda7620f69efac5e.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <DM8PR09MB6677B05D9D3C83518E9C27E8B85F2@DM8PR09MB6677.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.4 (3.52.4-2.fc40) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2ae3d790ba228a62c97a40a419c3d05890952b11.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 2024-11-10 at 15:05 +0000, Murthy Nunna wrote:
> So, in the test case that Fujii sent, the server crashed during backup so=
 it was safe to remove "backup_label".
>=20
> However, in case of a completed exclusive backup, if you remove "backup_l=
abel" and then try to bring up server
> using the same backed up data as PGDATA, then you will have corrupted ser=
ver. I get it.
>=20
> In my humble opinion with respect to all, if this is the only reason (rem=
oving "backup_label" thus introducing
> corruption) for removing exclusive backups, I think it is an oversight by=
 the Postgres Development Group
> approving this change.

The other reason is that in this day of automation it is unappealing that t=
here is a case where a
crashed server cannot start without manual intervention.  And automating th=
e removal of "backup_label"
is not a good idea...

But I see your point, and I argued similarly when the exclusive backup mode=
 was removed.
However, the majority disagreed.

See the discussion in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ac7339ca-3718-3c93-929f-99e725d1=
172c%40pgmasters.net

Yours,
Laurenz Albe