Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1msq2v-0008PY-NJ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 17:39:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1msq2u-0004yV-88 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 17:39:00 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1msq2t-0004xJ-Ub for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 17:38:59 +0000 Received: from mail.thelabyrinth.net ([45.56.70.56]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1msq2n-0006m6-IY for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 17:38:59 +0000 Received: from [172.22.1.165] (ccmhfincenter08.c.subnet.rcn.com [207.237.191.167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dsteele) by mail.thelabyrinth.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F3D3C5469C; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 17:38:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <553d2348-1015-3546-2be8-b5a8a745dfa8@pgmasters.net> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 12:38:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.2 Subject: Re: Postgres restart in the middle of exclusive backup and the presence of backup_label file Content-Language: en-US To: Andrew Dunstan , "Bossart, Nathan" , Tom Lane Cc: Stephen Frost , Laurenz Albe , Michael Paquier , Pg Hackers , SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM References: <417711.1637940660@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20211130142042.GR26257@tamriel.snowman.net> <3404870c1a921bafbcd168c098088981fe082ab1.camel@cybertec.at> <845544A4-0B0E-41D2-903C-C8B9E8A18812@amazon.com> <1661037.1638311167@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1cce9981-2c48-981a-a936-812830dfb3b1@pgmasters.net> <9427c6b3-5e0b-e27f-a2e7-ec1ebc00b582@pgmasters.net> <4a363c5a-473f-9cb9-9f59-74a230575340@dunslane.net> From: David Steele In-Reply-To: <4a363c5a-473f-9cb9-9f59-74a230575340@dunslane.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On 12/2/21 11:00, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 12/1/21 19:30, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> On 12/1/21, 10:37 AM, "Bossart, Nathan" wrote: >>> On 12/1/21, 8:27 AM, "David Steele" wrote: >>>> On 11/30/21 18:31, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >>>>> Do you think it's still worth trying to make it safe, or do you think >>>>> we should just remove exclusive mode completely? >>>> My preference would be to remove it completely, but I haven't gotten a >>>> lot of traction so far. >>> In this thread, I count 6 people who seem alright with removing it, >>> and 2 who might be opposed, although I don't think anyone has >>> explicitly stated they are against it. >> I hastily rebased the patch from 2018 and got it building and passing >> the tests. I'm sure it will need additional changes, but I'll wait >> for more feedback before I expend too much more effort on this. >> > > Should we really be getting rid of > PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster::backup_fs_hot() ? Agreed, it would be better to update backup_fs_hot() to use exclusive mode and save out backup_label instead. Regards, -David