public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
To: David Steele <[email protected]>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
Cc: 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 14:12:59 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
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>
	<[email protected]>

Greetings,

* David Steele ([email protected]) wrote:
> 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.

Yes, +1 to removing it.

> >>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.

I don't consider "maintained" and "still using the exclusive backup
method" to both be able to be true at the same time.

Thanks,

Stephen


Attachments:

  [application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (819B, ../[email protected]/2-signature.asc)
  download

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], [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