Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode
Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com>
From: Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-02-24T20:47:10Z
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
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:00, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > > Do they realize how that existing backup strategy is flawed? Undoubtedly, some do, some don't. However, given that it has been the *only* backup API for a very long time, many organizations have spent a lot of time closing all of the holes. It's not impossible to do safe backups with the existing API. Unquestionably, there are installations doing backups that might end up with a silently badly one, but it's entirely possible to do that unsafely (in many of the same ways) with the non-exclusively API. The installations that need to fix the scripts are also exactly the ones that can't use pg_basebackup or another pre-packaged solution, usually because they have a specific way of taking the file system copy (SAN snapshot, etc.) that those don't support. > We don't cater to this line of argument when it comes to breaking > changes in the backend, or when we break monitoring scripts, and I don't > see a reason why we should do so here. Those cases are not analogous. 1. Backend APIs are declared non-stable, and do not have a wide audience compared to backing up the database. 2. Monitoring scripts, while important, are not as critical as the backup system. (And, in fact, I didn't agree with breaking those views either, but that's another discussion.) > Ok, then please do so, and please be prepared to continue to maintain > the documentation of both methods moving forward, because others have > tried and have (rightfully, in my opinion) decided that it's frankly not > worth the effort and ultimately just terribly confusing for users that > we have these two different backup methods and even just updating the > documentation for one or the other is downright painful (to the point > that people litterally give up on it). We're going to have to do that anyway. For as long as we are maintaining the documentation on a version that has both APIs, we're going to have to say, "Don't use this one, and *here's why*." Saying, "Don't use this one because we said so" when it is an API of long standing that works just as it always did isn't going to cut it. -- -- Christophe Pettus xof@thebuild.com