Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

On 3/29/19 12:25 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 1:19 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 6:27 AM David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
> <mailto:david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>> wrote:
> > I used your suggestions with minor editing.  After some reflection, I
> > agree that the inline warnings are likely to be more effective than
> > something at the end, at least for those working on a new
> implementation.
>
> I'm glad we could agree on something.  Committed.

Me, too. Thanks!

> Minor nitpick:
> +     backup can only be taken on a primary and does not allow concurrent
> +     backups.  Moreover, because it writes a backup_label file on the
> +     master, it can cause the master to fail to restart automatically after
>
> Let's be consistent in if we call it a primary or a master, at least
> within the same paragraph :)

Agreed, let's stick with "primary".

Are we planning to back-patch this? The deprecation was added to the
docs in 9.6 -- I think these clarifications would be helpful.

Thanks,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net