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 →
  1. Remove exclusive backup mode

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