Subject: Re: Postgres restart in the middle of exclusive backup and the
 presence of backup_label file
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
References: 
 <CAHg+QDfiM+WU61tF6=nPZocMZvHDzCK47Kneyb0ZRULYzV5sKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220221172306.GA3698472@nathanxps13>
 <164589413251.1035.2695761148079719188.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
 <20220226220614.GA673898@nathanxps13> <20220301055100.GA1002387@nathanxps13>
 <e6657efe-f7b1-0894-9807-453c01bad81a@pgmasters.net>
 <621E4529.1090601@anastigmatix.net> <20220301173208.GB1031413@nathanxps13>
 <1f685b3a-7ec2-825e-bb2b-d87d78ad5bd9@pgmasters.net>
 <621E6C2E.2050801@anastigmatix.net>
 <20220301191441.GW10577@tamriel.snowman.net>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
 Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
From: Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>
Message-ID: <621E7A5C.1030203@anastigmatix.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 14:56:12 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20220301191441.GW10577@tamriel.snowman.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/621E7A5C.1030203%40anastigmatix.net>
Precedence: bulk

On 03/01/22 14:14, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> There can't really be many teams out there thinking "we'll just ignore
>> these scripts forever, and nothing bad will happen." They all know they'll
>> have to do stuff sometimes. But it matters how we allow them to schedule it.
> 
> We only make these changes between major versions.  That's as much as we
> should be required to provide.

It's an OSS project, so I guess we're not required to provide anything.

But in the course of this multi-release exclusive to non-exclusive
transition, we already demonstrated, in 7117685, that we can avoid
inflicting immediate breakage when there's nothing in our objective
that inherently requires it, and avoiding it is relatively easy.

I can't bring myself to think that was a bad precedent.

Now, granted, the difference between the adaptations being required then
and the ones required now is that those required both: changes to some
function calls, and corresponding changes to how the scripts handled
label and tablespace files. Here, it's only a clerical update to some
function calls.

So if I'm outvoted here and the reason is "look, a lighter burden is
involved this time than that time", then ok. I would rather bow to that
argument on the specific facts of one case than abandon the precedent
from 7117685 generally.

Regards,
-Chap