Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode
Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
From: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
Adrien NAYRAT <adrien.nayrat@anayrat.info>,
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-02-26T05:16:34Z
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 26/02/19 5:41 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings Mark, > > * Mark Kirkwood (mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz) wrote: >> ISTM that the onus should be on the patch submitter to provide additions to >> pg_basebackup that make it as painless as possible for those people *not* >> using pgBackRest to continue making backups. Breaking this is just not >> right. Submitting patches that mean that people *must* use pgBackRest is >> also not right IMHO. > I'm sorry that there's some confusion here- to be clear, no one is > required to use pgBackRest. pg_basebackup works quite well and wouldn't > be impacted by the changes proposed no this thread. The arguments > against removing the exclusive backup feature don't have anything to do > with pg_basebackup. > Ah yes (checks pg_basbackup code), you are correct! Reading this thread I thought I saw a comment to the effect that pg_basebackup was being broken, hence the less than impressed post. Your relentless bashing of people doing their own backups and heavy marketing of pgBackRest - unfortunately - made it easy for me to believe that this was a possibility that you might see as ok. So - apologies for the misunderstanding, however less marketing of your own product would avoid me jumping to the wrong conclusion. regards Mark