| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | abo(at)velvica(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Possible mistake in backup documentation |
| Date: | 2020-09-25 12:32:26 |
| Message-ID: | 3e33df71449fdc083b1ed8a4dfe3ee129de59798.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Tue, 2020-09-22 at 14:17 +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> In "25.3.3.2. Making An Exclusive Low-Level Backup", you said that "The
> exclusive backup method is deprecated and should be avoided. Prior to
> PostgreSQL 9.6, this was the only low-level method available, but it is now
> recommended that all users upgrade their scripts to use non-exclusive
> backups". But in the example in "25.3.6.1. Standalone Hot Backups" you use
> the exclusive version of backup command. Is it a mistake or not?
Yes, that's true.
How about the attached patch?
Perhaps that is too complicated, but I have no idea how to make it simpler.
Ceterum censeo, we should not deprecate the exclusive backup API.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Use-non-exclusive-backup-in-example.patch | text/x-patch | 2.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-09-25 12:50:38 | Re: Possible mistake in backup documentation |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-09-24 19:37:14 | Re: Please provide examples of rows from |