Re: Updated backup APIs for non-exclusive backups

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 &amp;&amp; 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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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