Re: Rename backup_label to recovery_control

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Rename backup_label to recovery_control
Date: 2023-10-16 17:23:32
Message-ID: dd9683dd-dc04-3009-c0ad-f666ec6f738a@pgmasters.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/16/23 12:12, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:06 PM Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> Not sure what to do about this, but as people/companies start moving to
>> 15, I am afraid we will get people complaining about this. I think
>> having exclusive mode still be the default for pg_start_backup() (albeit
>> deprecated) in one release and then dropping it in the next was too
>> fast.
>
> I completely agree, and I said so at the time, but got shouted down. I
> think the argument that exclusive backups were breaking anything at
> all was very weak. Nobody was being forced to use them, and they broke
> nothing for people who didn't.

My argument then (and now) is that exclusive backup prevented us from
making material improvements in backup and recovery. It was complicated,
duplicative (in code and docs), and entirely untested.

So you are correct that it was only dangerous to the people who were
using it (even if they did not know they were), but it was also a
barrier to progress.

Regards,
-David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2023-10-16 17:26:35 Re: Improving Physical Backup/Restore within the Low Level API
Previous Message David Steele 2023-10-16 17:16:19 Re: Rename backup_label to recovery_control