Re: PATCH: Make pg_stop_backup() archive wait optional

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Make pg_stop_backup() archive wait optional
Date: 2017-03-22 18:44:33
Message-ID: CAHGQGwFd+7D5UPwLLCW3=5mmDzXOKN56gySRUqdRzaeVK_L2HQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> David, all,
>
> * David Steele (david(at)pgmasters(dot)net) wrote:
>> On 3/21/17 2:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >The patch basically looks good to me, but one comment is;
>> >backup.sgml (at least the description for "Making a non-exclusive
>> >low level backup) seems to need to be updated.
>>
>> Agreed. Added in the attached patch and rebased on 8027556.

Thanks for updating the patch!

-SELECT * FROM pg_stop_backup(false);
+SELECT * FROM pg_stop_backup(false [, true ]);

I think that it's better to get rid of "[" and "]" from the above because
IMO this should be the command example that users actually can run.

+ If the backup process monitors the WAL archiving process independently,
+ the second parameter (which defaults to true) can be set to false to
+ prevent <function>pg_stop_backup</> from blocking until all WAL is
+ archived. Instead, the function will return as soon as the stop backup
+ record is written to the WAL. This option must be used with caution:
+ if WAL archiving is not monitored correctly then the result might be a
+ useless backup.

You added this descriptions into the step #4 in the non-exclusive
backup procedure.. But since the step #5 already explains how
pg_stop_backup has to do with WAL archiving, I think that it's better
to update (or add something like the above descriptions into)
the step #5. Thought?

+ If the backup process monitors the WAL archiving process independently,

Can we explain "monitor the WAL archiving process" part a bit more
explicitly? For example, "monitor and ensure that all WAL segment files
required for the backup are successfully archived".

> I've started looking at this. Seems pretty straight-forward and will
> try to get it committed later today.

Thanks!

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-03-22 18:47:11 Re: Possible regression with gather merge.
Previous Message Elvis Pranskevichus 2017-03-22 18:27:12 Re: [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable.