From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Updated backup APIs for non-exclusive backups |
Date: | 2016-04-20 00:55:49 |
Message-ID: | 20160420005549.GA2006051@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 06:22:47PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:08:23PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > I won't have time to do the bigger rewrite/reordeirng by then, but I can
> > > certainly commit to having the smaller updates done to cover the new
> > > functionality in less than a week.
> There is some duplication between the non-exclusive and exclusive backup
> sections, but I wanted to make sure that each set of instructions can just
> be followed top-to-bottom.
>
> I've also removed some tips that aren't really necessary as part of the
> step-by-step instructions in order to keep things from exploding in size.
>
> Finally, I've changed references to "backup dump" to just be "backup",
> because it's confusing to call them something with dumps in when it's not
> pg_dump. Enough that I got partially confused myself while editing...
>
> Comments?
I scanned this briefly, and it looks reasonable. I recommend committing it
forthwith.
> *** a/doc/src/sgml/backup.sgml
> --- b/doc/src/sgml/backup.sgml
> ***************
> *** 818,823 **** test ! -f /mnt/server/archivedir/00000001000000A900000065 && cp pg_xlog/
> --- 818,838 ----
> simple. It is very important that these steps are executed in
> sequence, and that the success of a step is verified before
> proceeding to the next step.
> + </para>
> + <para>
> + Low level base backups can be made in a non-exclusive or an exclusive
> + way. The non-exclusive method is recommended and the exclusive one will
> + at some point be deprecated and removed.
"I will deprecate X at some point" has the same effect as "I deprecate X now."
If you have no doubt you want to deprecate it, I advise plainer phrasing like,
"The exclusive method is deprecated and will eventually be removed." That is
to say, just deprecate it right now. If you have doubts, omit deprecation.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2016-04-20 01:22:57 | Re: EXPLAIN VERBOSE with parallel Aggregate |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-04-19 22:35:05 | Re: VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc |