Re: Possible mistake in backup documentation

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:32 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
wrote:

> 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.
>

Well, technically it is *correct*. It's just rather silly that we are using
the deprecated API in the example.

How about the attached patch?
>

> Perhaps that is too complicated, but I have no idea how to make it simpler.
>

For this example, can't we just show two sessions. That is, "in a psql, run
pg_start_backup(). Then in a different session, copy all the files, and
then back in psql run pg_stop_backup()" or such?

This is still just an example of a low level operation, where the
recommendation is (and is there iirc) to use a different tool for it
already.

> Ceterum censeo, we should not deprecate the exclusive backup API.
>

Well. We should depreciate the way it works now, but we should also provide
a *better* way to solve the actual problem. This is not necessarily an API
that looks the way the deprecated one looks -- the focus should be on
providing a solution to the problem, not to un-deprecate the API.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>