Re: Doc: Move standalone backup section, mention -X argument

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 1:54 AM Benoit Lobréau <benoit(dot)lobreau(at)dalibo(dot)com>
wrote:

> I don’t think pg_basebackup fits naturally under the "File System Level
> Backup" section. I considered creating a "Standalone Physical Backup"
> section with two subsections: FS-level backups and pg_basebackup, but
> that didn’t feel right either.
>

Aside from the name choice this is what I propose, so can you elaborate on
what doesn't feel right? You cannot have both "Standalone Physical Backup"
and "File System Level Backup" co-exist so maybe that was it - not
realizing that your "new" section is just my proposal?

> What I find most problematic about the current state of the
> documentation is that this solution is buried in the "Tips and Examples"
> section.

I'll agree with that too;

Making it a sect2 under File System Level Backup is also a solution to your
"buried" complaint.

> What if we just move the "Standalone Hot Backups" up one level and
> rename the level 2 section ?

My initial annoyance was having the following sentence in a section named,
in part, PITR.

"These are backups that cannot be used for point-in-time recovery."

Which suggests the advice is fundamentally misplaced when in PITR sect2.

David J.