Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 09:20:42 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Postgres restart in the middle of exclusive backup and the
 presence of backup_label file
Message-ID: <20211130142042.GR26257@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: 
 <CAHg+QDfiM+WU61tF6=nPZocMZvHDzCK47Kneyb0ZRULYzV5sKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YZ7Amotspa4ve+91@paquier.xyz>
 <CAHg+QDekOasWArvmPeOqhyTUHR40DsDOWyt7OaKxpQ7eFYqysw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YaB3Oj4GfPOZ/3LC@paquier.xyz>
 <417711.1637940660@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lCKkSrrNUaKEhaIQ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <417711.1637940660@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20211130142042.GR26257%40tamriel.snowman.net>
Precedence: bulk


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

Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 06:19:03PM -0800, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM wrot=
e:
> >> If we are keeping it then why not make it better?
>=20
> > Well, non-exclusive backups are better by design in many aspects, so I
> > don't quite see the point in spending time on something that has more
> > limitations than what's already in place.
>=20
> IMO the main reason for keeping it is backwards compatibility for users
> who have a satisfactory backup arrangement using it.  That same argument
> implies that we shouldn't change how it works (at least, not very much).

There isn't a satisfactory backup approach using it specifically because
of this issue, hence why we should remove it to make it so users don't
run into this.  Would also simplify the documentation around the low
level backup API, which would be a very good thing.  Right now, making
improvements in that area is very challenging even if all you want to do
is improve the documentation around the non-exclusive API.

We dealt with this as best as one could in pgbackrest for PG versions
prior to when non-exclusive backup was added- which is to remove the
backup_label file as soon as possible and then put it back right before
you call pg_stop_backup() (since it'll complain otherwise).  Not a
perfect answer though and a risk still exists there of a failed restart
happening.  Of course, for versions which support non-exclusive backup,
we use that to avoid this issue.

We also extensively changed how restore works a couple releases ago and
while there was some noise about it, it certainly wasn't all that bad.
I don't find the reasons brought up to continue to support exclusive
backup to be at all compelling and the lack of huge issues with the new
way restore works to make it abundently clear that we can, in fact,
remove exclusive backup in a major version change without the world
coming down.

Thanks,

Stephen

--lCKkSrrNUaKEhaIQ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=Dq0p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--lCKkSrrNUaKEhaIQ--