Horton

Re: post-freeze damage control

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>

View thread
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Stefan Fercot <stefan.fercot@protonmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-04-11T21:48:12Z
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. revert: Transform OR clauses to ANY expression

  2. Fix incorrect calculation in BlockRefTableEntryGetBlocks.

On 4/11/24 20:26, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> 
> On 4/11/24 03:52, David Steele wrote:
>> On 4/11/24 10:23, Tom Kincaid wrote:
>>>
>>> The extensive Beta process we have can be used to build confidence we
>>> need in a feature that has extensive review and currently has no known
>>> issues or outstanding objections.
>>
>> I did have objections, here [1] and here [2]. I think the complexity,
>> space requirements, and likely performance issues involved in restores
>> are going to be a real problem for users. Some of these can be addressed
>> in future releases, but I can't escape the feeling that what we are
>> releasing here is half-baked.
> 
> I haven't been part of those discussions, and that part of the thread is
> a couple months old already, so I'll share my view here instead.
> 
> I do not think it's half-baked. I certainly agree there are limitations,
> and there's all kinds of bells and whistles we could add, but I think
> the fundamental infrastructure is corrent and a meaningful step forward.
> Would I wish it to handle .tar for example? Sure I would. But I think
> it's something we can add in the future - if we require all of this to
> happen in a single release, it'll never happen.

Fair enough, but the current release is extremely limited and it would 
be best if that was well understood by users.

> FWIW that discussion also mentions stuff that I think the feature should
> not do. In particular, I don't think the ambition was (or should be) to
> make pg_basebackup into a stand-alone tool. I always saw pg_basebackup
> more as an interface to "backup steps" correctly rather than a complete
> backup solution that'd manage backup registry, retention, etc.

Right -- this is exactly my issue. pg_basebackup was never easy to use 
as a backup solution and this feature makes it significantly more 
complicated. Complicated enough that it would be extremely difficult for 
most users to utilize in a meaningful way.

But they'll try because it is a new pg_basebackup feature and they'll 
assume it is there to be used. Maybe it would be a good idea to make it 
clear in the documentation that significant tooling will be required to 
make it work.

Regards,
-David