From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres restart in the middle of exclusive backup and the presence of backup_label file |
Date: | 2021-11-29 18:25:24 |
Message-ID: | D3F9FFD5-282F-4E47-A7EF-3D87F0622496@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/26/21, 7:33 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 06:19:03PM -0800, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM wrote:
>>> If we are keeping it then why not make it better?
>
>> Well, non-exclusive backups are better by design in many aspects, so I
>> don't quite see the point in spending time on something that has more
>> limitations than what's already in place.
>
> IMO the main reason for keeping it is backwards compatibility for users
> who have a satisfactory backup arrangement using it. That same argument
> implies that we shouldn't change how it works (at least, not very much).
The issues with exclusive backups seem to be fairly well-documented
(e.g., c900c15), but perhaps there should also be a note in the
"Backup Control Functions" table [0].
Nathan
[0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-admin.html#FUNCTIONS-ADMIN-BACKUP
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-29 18:40:31 | Re: Lots of memory allocated when reassigning Large Objects |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2021-11-29 18:22:47 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |