From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Backups from the standby (Incrementally Updated Backups), open item |
Date: | 2010-08-24 20:54:43 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTim5K5xus7fmSXYFuVgMWWYEvYAzzEf2_yUmYHEF@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 8/24/10 12:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
>>> Is this method not reliable then? Can something go wrong even if the
>>> user does exactly what the documentation says?
>>
>> It is not. This whole discussion started from somebody reporting that
>> it didn't work.
>
> Again, given that this is a method which is (a) fairly minority-need,
> and (b) not at all tested in the field, I do not think it belongs in the
> main docs. Let's put it on the wiki and blog about it, and AFTER we've
> collected bug reports and have something relatively bulletproof for 9.1,
> THEN we put it in the main docs.
>
> We really shouldn't have anything in the main docs related to backup
> which isn't 100% tested.
Yeah. This whole procedure sounds pretty flakey to me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2010-08-24 20:56:48 | Re: gSoC add MERGE command new patch -- merge_v104 |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-08-24 20:53:45 | Re: Backups from the standby (Incrementally Updated Backups), open item |