Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-07-02T13:52:43Z
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 →
-
Remove exclusive backup mode
- 39969e2a1e4d 15.0 landed
Greetings, * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:06 AM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com> > wrote: > > function to list in progress non-exclusive backup and related backend pid > > might > > be a good start? > > I think it would make perfect sense to show manual (exclusive or > non-exclusive) base backups in pg_stat_progress_basebackup. There's no > fundamental need that one should only be for base backups taken with > pg_basebackup. In fact, I'd argue that's a mistake in the view in v13 that > it does not include this information. I agree entirely that it was a mistake in v13 to not include this- and to not include a way for other backup tools to report their progress. This is a good example of why we really need an in-core non-streamed backup capability, imv, because if we don't we end up with things like this that are just thinking about streaming basebackups. We also have no in-core code that is user-facing that exercises the low-level backup API. > It could have "phase" set to "manual non-exclusive" for example, and leave > the other fields at NULL. Yeah. > I guess in theory even for exclusive ones, with the pid column set to NULL. > (As Stephen mentioned at some point in the future we might also want to > extend it to allow these tools to report their progress as well into it, > probably by just calling an admin function on the connection that they > already have). Right, that wouldn't have been hard to include and would have been quite nice. Thanks, Stephen