From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: New SQL functons pg_backup_in_progress() and pg_backup_start_tim |
Date: | 2012-06-15 15:09:51 |
Message-ID: | CABUevExgHx8vALRMzAEG65OY87cnswTqiESLu+AcM0Rd95J4zQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2012-06-15 15:11:51 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: New SQL functons pg_backup_in_progress() and pg_backup_start_tim |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2012-06-15 15:08:07 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: New SQL functons pg_backup_in_progress() and pg_backup_start_tim |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2012-06-15 15:11:51 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: New SQL functons pg_backup_in_progress() and pg_backup_start_tim |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2012-06-15 15:08:07 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: New SQL functons pg_backup_in_progress() and pg_backup_start_tim |