Subject: 8.4 doc bug for "Incrementally Updated Backups"

From: Jeff Janes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:09:15 -0800

Based on Jürgen Fuchsberger's experience described on the general
list, I think the following should have been back-patched to 8.4 and
8.3 (assuming it gets a minor update before it EOL) as well, not just
9.0.

In particular, in 8.4 chapter 24.4.5 it says "it will be up to you to
determine how far back you need to keep WAL segment files to have a
recoverable backup"  but it dangerously does not mention that it is
also up to you to construct a backup_label file such that those WAL
segment files will actually get used.

commit 13e6d6c5da184abcdfcfc9874ad17ef09f4ea044
Author: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date:   Wed Aug 25 23:55:54 2010 +0000

    Remove docs for "Incrementally Updated Backups" because it was of
    questionable reliability;  information moved to a wiki:

        http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Incrementally_Updated_Backups

    Backpatch to 9.0.

Cheers,

Jeff

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 18:42:05 -0500

>         http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Incrementally_Updated_Backups

We don't assume people are reading docs from very old versions.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

---

From: Jeff Janes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:26:48 -0800

> We don't assume people are reading docs from very old versions.

Even if that is the version they are using?  It is, after all, still
under maintenance,

Cheers,

Jeff

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:36:44 -0500

> Even if that is the version they are using?  It is, after all, still

There are three options for doc patches:

1.  patch only git head, meaning the next major release
2.  do #1, plus the most recent major released version, e.g. 9.2.X
3.  #1, #2, and all major supported released versions

In general, #1 is normally for wording clarifications, #2 is for usage
clarifications, and #3 is to correct mistakes.  Not sure I follow that
100%, but that is what I normally do.

Is that process good?  Did I not follow it?

---

From: Jeff Janes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:56:27 -0800

> Is that process good?  Did I not follow it?

It was removed from 9.0 because it was considered to be unreliable.  I
think that unreliable advice about taking backups is a mistake, so it
should have followed path #3.  I guess it is also clarification, but a
pretty major one.

Cheers,

Jeff

-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email-masked])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:27:41 +0100

> should have followed path #3.  I guess it is also clarification, but a

I think it can be considered a bugfix, and thus correcting a mistake.

But in generael, I think we may want to be a bit more aggressive in
backpatching these things. First because people will likely read the
docs for the version that they are using, and thus miss things. But
possibly even more important, because we know that Google (and others)
tend to link to older versions of the docs as search hits before the
newer ones for quite a long time after a release (or forever in some
cases), which makes it even more visible.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:01:50 -0500

> should have followed path #3.  I guess it is also clarification, but a

I checked just now and the unreliable advice does not appear in 8.4, so
it possible that in 2010 I checked and found it only applied back to
9.0, or I might only have checked 9.0.  I don't remember now, but based
on the fact it was an incorrect recommendation, I probably would have
backpatched it as far back as possible.  Sorry I was unclear on this
issue in previous emails.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:02:16 -0500

> cases), which makes it even more visible.

See my new email;  it doesn't appear in 8.4, and I probably checked that
at the time.

---

From: Jeff Janes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:17:18 -0800

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 9.0, or I might only have checked 9.0.

The docs were re-arranged, so it is present but in a different place.

Sorry, I should have included the URL in the first place (24.4.5) :

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/warm-standby.html

Cheers,

Jeff

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:36:50 -0500

> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/warm-standby.html

OK, removed from 8.3 and 8.4 docs.  I was looking in the 9.0+ file for
that section.