| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |
| Date: | 2018-12-13 00:01:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20181213000123.GB9437@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 08:22:10AM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> Add the fact that we have *zero* tests for exclusive backups. I only
> had to refactor one exclusive backup in the tests and since it did not
> archive, exclude pg_wal, postmaster.pid, or do anything else our docs
> recommend I wouldn't say it qualifies as a real test. Also, it wasn't
> even trying to test exclusive backups -- it was a test for logical
> replication following timelines.
This point is really right. The TAP tests rely heavily on pg_basebackup
when taking base backups, still there is an interface to be able to take
filesystem-level backups with the exclusive SQL interface. The test
David is referring to here is backup_fs_hot in PostgresNode.pm.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-12-13 00:06:26 | Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context for primary_conninfo and primary_slot_name |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-12-12 22:45:24 | gist microvacuum doesn't appear to care about hot standby? |