| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres restart in the middle of exclusive backup and the presence of backup_label file |
| Date: | 2021-12-01 16:14:54 |
| Message-ID: | 979c5a50-4da3-4cd0-010e-7d17e6ebd69b@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/30/21 17:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> writes:
>> It looks like the exclusive way has been marked deprecated in all
>> supported versions along with a note that it will eventually be
>> removed. If it's not going to be removed out of fear of breaking
>> backward compatibility, I think the documentation should be updated to
>> say that. However, unless there is something that is preventing users
>> from switching to the non-exclusive approach, I think it is reasonable
>> to begin thinking about removing it.
> If we're willing to outright remove it, I don't have any great objection.
> My original two cents was that we shouldn't put effort into improving it;
> but removing it isn't that.
>
>
+1
Let's just remove it. We already know it's a footgun, and there's been
plenty of warning.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-12-01 16:20:46 | Re: Is it worth adding ReplicationSlot active_pid to ReplicationSlotPersistentData? |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2021-12-01 16:00:20 | Re: Postgres restart in the middle of exclusive backup and the presence of backup_label file |