Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: New SQL functons pg_backup_in_progress() and pg_backup_start_tim

On 15 June 2012 16:09, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 15 June 2012 15:54, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>> New SQL functons pg_backup_in_progress() and pg_backup_start_time()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darold Gilles, reviewed by Gabriele Bartolini and others, rebased by
>>>>>> Marco Nenciarini.  Stylistic cleanup and OID fixes by me.
>>>>>
>>>>> How well is the term "on-line exclusive backup" really settled with
>>>>> people? I wonder if we need to add a specific note to the docs saying
>>>>> that the function doesn't consider streaming base backups at all, and
>>>>> that one should refer to pg_stat_replication for info about those? Or
>>>>> really, should the function be pg_exclusive_backup_in_progress()
>>>>> perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> Well, if we think that the term "exclusive backup" is not going to be
>>>> easily comprehensible, then sticking that into the function name isn't
>>>> going to help us much.  I think that's just wordiness for the sake of
>>>> being wordy.  I do agree that we could probably improve the clarity of
>>>> the documentation along the lines you suggest.
>>>
>>> It would alert people to the existance of the term, and thus help
>>> those who didn't actually read the documentation.
>>>
>>> Which actually makes an argument for making that change *anyway*,
>>> because right now the function is incorrectly named. A function named
>>> pg_backup_in_progress() should answer the question "is a backup in
>>> progress". And it doesn't answer that question.
>>
>> Maybe pg_is_in_backup_mode, which would match the naming convention of
>> pg_is_in_recovery, and would claim that a backup is actually underway.
>
> Wouldn't that make it even more wrong since it doesn't include backups
> taken using streaming backups?

Sorry I mean "*wouldn't* claim that a backup is underway"

--
Thom