Re: block-level incremental backup

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>

Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2019-04-22T18:33:46Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Don't call data type input functions in GUC check hooks
- 21f428ebde39 12.0 cited

Hi,

On 2019-04-22 14:26:40 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I'm disappointed that the concerns about the trouble that end users are
> likely to have with this didn't garner more discussion.

My impression is that endusers are having a lot more trouble due to
important backup/restore features not being in core/pg_basebackup, than
due to external tools having a harder time to implement certain
features. Focusing on external tools being able to provide all those
features, because core hasn't yet, is imo entirely the wrong thing to
concentrate upon.  And it's not like things largely haven't been
implemented in pg_basebackup for fundamental architectural reasons.
It's because we've built like 5 different external tools with randomly
differing featureset and licenses.

Greetings,

Andres Freund