From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |
Date: | 2018-11-27 22:20:17 |
Message-ID: | 20181127222017.GJ3415@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:45:04AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > If you don't consider your recovery scripts and your backup scripts to
> > be related then I've really got to wonder how you're regularly testing
> > your backups to make sure that they're actually valid.
>
> Base backups can be perfectly self-contained as long as they include all
> the WAL segments needed to recover up to the end-of-backup record.
> That's what pg_basebackup does with its default options
> (--wal-method=stream in particular).
This really doesn't change my opinion at all. Sure, some custom scripts
might have been written to operate in this way and now they'll need to
be adjusted to work the exact same way pg_basebackup works today and use
the non-exclusive mode, but they'll be better off for it and won't have
the concern about what happens if the system is inadvertantly restarted
during a backup.
I'd also say it's likely that places which know enough to build such a
solution aren't ones that we really need to worry about having an issue
adjusting their scripts.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-11-27 22:45:41 | Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2018-11-27 21:56:17 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |