public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: David Steele <[email protected]>
To: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
To: Chapman Flack <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Postgres restart in the middle of exclusive backup and the presence of backup_label file
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 12:22:25 -0600
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220301173208.GB1031413@nathanxps13>
References: <CAHg+QDfiM+WU61tF6=nPZocMZvHDzCK47Kneyb0ZRULYzV5sKQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20220221172306.GA3698472@nathanxps13>
<164589413251.1035.2695761148079719188.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
<20220226220614.GA673898@nathanxps13>
<20220301055100.GA1002387@nathanxps13>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<20220301173208.GB1031413@nathanxps13>
On 3/1/22 11:32, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:09:13AM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote:
>> On 03/01/22 09:44, David Steele wrote:
>>> Personally, I am in favor of removing it. We change/rename
>>> functions/tables/views when we need to, and this happens in almost every
>>> release.
>>
>> For clarification, is that a suggestion to remove the 'exclusive' parameter
>> in some later release, after using this release to default it to false and
>> reject calls with true?
>
> My suggestion was to remove it in v15. My impression is that David and
> Stephen agree, but I could be misinterpreting their responses.
I agree and I'm pretty sure Stephen does as well.
>> That way, at least, there would be a period of time where procedures
>> that currently work (by passing exclusive => false) would continue to work,
>> and could be adapted as time permits by removing that argument, with no
>> behavioral change.
>
> I'm not sure if there's any advantage to kicking the can down the road. At
> some point, we'll need to break existing backup scripts. Will we be more
> prepared to do that in v17 than we are now? We could maintain two sets of
> functions for a few releases and make it really clear in the documentation
> that pg_start/stop_backup() are going to be removed soon (and always emit a
> WARNING when they are used). Would that address your concerns?
I think people are going to complain no matter what. If scripts are
being maintained changing the name is not a big deal (though moving from
exclusive to non-exclusive may be). If they aren't being maintained then
they'll just blow up a few versions down the road when we remove the
compatibility functions.
Regards,
-David
view thread (18+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Postgres restart in the middle of exclusive backup and the presence of backup_label file
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox