| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server |
| Date: | 2017-07-24 16:35:01 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob+dyCe-oWPJOgDQAqott9Gk8GJjyGQ4dK-eDdE8FG5+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Those backup scripts might very well be, today, producing invalid
> backups though, which would be much less good..
True. However, I suspect that depends on what procedure is actually
being followed. If *everyone* who is using this is getting corrupt
backups, then of course changing the behavior is a no-brainer. But if
*some* people are getting correct backups and *some* people are
getting incorrect backups, depending on procedure, then I think
changing it is unwise. We should optimize for the case of a user who
is currently doing something smart, not one who is doing something
dumb.
> I'd hate to have to do it, but we could technically add a GUC to address
> this in the back-branches, no? I'm not sure that's really worthwhile
> though..
That would be mighty ugly.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-07-24 16:45:14 | Re: pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-07-24 16:31:35 | Re: pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server |