Message-ID: <71fcff9e-371b-4f6a-bd34-bfe5cffb864f@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:26:38 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: post-freeze damage control
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
 Stefan Fercot <stefan.fercot@protonmail.com>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <202404091545.7zont3umry74@alvherre.pgsql>
 <4D31BF67-4138-41DC-831D-4BCE0466A59F@yandex-team.ru>
 <f2e7f916-b32f-48ac-8200-7a803a241b5e@pgmasters.net>
 <ZhXUYBXTWvF4OaPm@paquier.xyz>
 <e61e8b08-e67e-4d45-9e66-1eaa82d49f16@pgmasters.net>
 <CAKPRjUMVH+YDxEUdHqBPQov9oiDek=bJMAKLQotPYfVZ=i3AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <cab01e3d-bf5d-4750-b67f-8c1b2f74d6ea@pgmasters.net>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <cab01e3d-bf5d-4750-b67f-8c1b2f74d6ea@pgmasters.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/71fcff9e-371b-4f6a-bd34-bfe5cffb864f%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk


On 4/11/24 03:52, David Steele wrote:
> On 4/11/24 10:23, Tom Kincaid wrote:
>>
>> The extensive Beta process we have can be used to build confidence we
>> need in a feature that has extensive review and currently has no known
>> issues or outstanding objections.
> 
> I did have objections, here [1] and here [2]. I think the complexity,
> space requirements, and likely performance issues involved in restores
> are going to be a real problem for users. Some of these can be addressed
> in future releases, but I can't escape the feeling that what we are
> releasing here is half-baked.
> 

I haven't been part of those discussions, and that part of the thread is
a couple months old already, so I'll share my view here instead.

I do not think it's half-baked. I certainly agree there are limitations,
and there's all kinds of bells and whistles we could add, but I think
the fundamental infrastructure is corrent and a meaningful step forward.
Would I wish it to handle .tar for example? Sure I would. But I think
it's something we can add in the future - if we require all of this to
happen in a single release, it'll never happen.

FWIW that discussion also mentions stuff that I think the feature should
not do. In particular, I don't think the ambition was (or should be) to
make pg_basebackup into a stand-alone tool. I always saw pg_basebackup
more as an interface to "backup steps" correctly rather than a complete
backup solution that'd manage backup registry, retention, etc.

> Also, there are outstanding issues here [3] and now here [4].
> 

I agree with some of this, I'll respond in the threads.


regards
Tomas

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company