Message-ID: <eafdd15c-6597-f205-c2df-3fb3817ccbd4@pgmasters.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:09:50 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.2
Subject: Re: Postgres restart in the middle of exclusive backup and the
 presence of backup_label file
Content-Language: en-US
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
 Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
References: <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>
 <621E7A5C.1030203@anastigmatix.net>
 <20220301200523.GX10577@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <20220302010302.GA1182956@nathanxps13> <621FC447.90502@anastigmatix.net>
 <20220308200107.GA85558@nathanxps13>
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
In-Reply-To: <20220308200107.GA85558@nathanxps13>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/eafdd15c-6597-f205-c2df-3fb3817ccbd4%40pgmasters.net>
Precedence: bulk

On 3/8/22 14:01, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 02:23:51PM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote:
>> I did not notice this earlier (sorry), but there seems to remain in
>> backup.sgml a programlisting example that shows a psql invocation
>> for pg_backup_start, then a tar command, then another psql invocation
>> for pg_backup_stop.
>>
>> I think that was only workable for the exclusive mode, and now it is
>> necessary to issue pg_backup_start and pg_backup_stop in the same session.
>>
>> (The 'touch backup_in_progress' business seems a bit bogus now too,
>> suggesting an exclusivity remembered from bygone days.)
>>
>> I am not sure what a workable, simple example ought to look like.
>> Maybe a single psql script issuing the pg_backup_start and the
>> pg_backup_stop, with a tar command in between with \! ?
>>
>> Several bricks shy of production-ready, but it would give the idea.
> 
> Another option might be to just remove this section.  The top of the
> section mentions that this is easily done using pg_basebackup with the -X
> parameter.  The bottom part of the section includes more complicated steps
> for when "more flexibility in copying the backup files is needed..."
> AFAICT the more complicated strategy was around before pg_basebackup, and
> the pg_basebackup recommendation was added in 2012 as part of 920febd.
> Thoughts?

This makes sense to me. I think pg_basebackup is far preferable to doing 
anything like what is described in this section. Unless you are planning 
to do something fancy (parallelization, snapshots, object stores, etc.) 
then pg_basebackup is the way to go.

Regards,
-David