Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 12:53:13 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
	Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Make pg_stop_backup() archive wait optional
Message-ID: <20170306175312.GX9812@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <758e3fd1-45b4-5e28-75cd-e9e7f93a4c02@pgmasters.net>
 <CAB7nPqRf6LnNN3TZZGi5DJ8sTWE5XekBSAj7E0CqsJ1nDGhiEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <35b7530c-68ce-7090-e13c-e39e4dac9bca@pgmasters.net>
 <CAB7nPqS-vH_Hk=+n63SHKS4ZrpknwNN9KMr9WkPZ9De=wU02Yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <967b90bd-6b65-a18a-5266-bfa9191c40e6@pgmasters.net>
 <CA+TgmoYCWfO2UM-t=HUMFJyxJywLDiLL0nAJpx88LKtvBvNECw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aa775a6f-059c-47dc-ef87-1f017073014b@pgmasters.net>
 <CA+TgmobfcE=fVoqhgWr6SFuhARdo6DY2Yz27eOevJnXr0ch1Lw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0f46c90e-2884-59be-69bf-8f467d4c9ba2@pgmasters.net>
 <CA+TgmoZfjF2k6N8Rfga20bXxnRAttuz8N6dvxeOu=t3j0FYYsg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="P4iVvP27TPzU8KQW"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoZfjF2k6N8Rfga20bXxnRAttuz8N6dvxeOu=t3j0FYYsg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


--P4iVvP27TPzU8KQW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Robert, all,

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 9:12 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> > Yes, that makes sense.  Attached are two patches as requested:
> >
> > 01 - Just marks pg_stop_backup() variants as parallel restricted
> > 02 - Add the wait_for_archive param to pg_stop_backup().
> >
> > These apply cleanly on 272adf4.
>=20
> Committed 01.  Nobody's offered an opinion about 02 yet, so I'm not
> going to commit that, but one minor nitpick:
>=20
> +    WAL to be archived.  This behavior is only useful for backup
> +    software which independently monitors WAL archiving, otherwise WAL
> +    required to make the backup consistent might be missing and make the=
 backup
>=20
> I think this should really say "...which independently monitors WAL
> archiving.  Otherwise, WAL..."

Regarding 02, I certainly see that as valuable for the reasons which
David outlined in his initial email.  I can certainly take point on
getting it committed, but I wouldn't complain if someone else does
either.

Thanks!

Stephen

--P4iVvP27TPzU8KQW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=WotV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--P4iVvP27TPzU8KQW--