Horton

Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Martín Marqués <martin@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2019-03-29T12:45:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 3/29/19 12:25 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 1:19 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com 
> <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 6:27 AM David Steele <david@pgmasters.net
>     <mailto:david@pgmasters.net>> wrote:
>      > I used your suggestions with minor editing.  After some reflection, I
>      > agree that the inline warnings are likely to be more effective than
>      > something at the end, at least for those working on a new
>     implementation.
> 
>     I'm glad we could agree on something.  Committed.

Me, too.  Thanks!

> Minor nitpick:
> +     backup can only be taken on a primary and does not allow concurrent
> +     backups.  Moreover, because it writes a backup_label file on the
> +     master, it can cause the master to fail to restart automatically after
> 
> Let's be consistent in if we call it a primary or a master, at least 
> within the same paragraph :)

Agreed, let's stick with "primary".

Are we planning to back-patch this?  The deprecation was added to the
docs in 9.6 -- I think these clarifications would be helpful.

Thanks,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net

Commits

  1. Warn more strongly about the dangers of exclusive backup mode.