On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 06:56 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 19:40 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> >> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >> > This doesn't contain any changes to pg_start_backup() yet, that's a
> >> > separate issue and still under discussion.
> >>
> >> I'm thinking of changing pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup so that
> >> they just check that wal_level >= 'archive', and changing pg_stop_backup
> >> so that it doesn't wait for archiving when archive_mode is OFF.
> >>
> >> This change is very simple and enables us to take a base backup for SR
> >> even if archive_mode is OFF. Thought?
> >
> > Makes sense.
> >
> > I'm wondering whether this could cause problems with people taking hot
> > backups that aren't aimed at SR. Perhaps we could have 2 new functions
> > whose names are more closely linked to the exact purpose:
> > pg_start_replication_copy() etc..
> > which then act exactly as you suggest.
>
> Hmm. That seems a bit complicated. Why can't we just let people use
> the existing functions the way they always have?
We can, but I already gave a reason why we should not.
IIRC it was you that suggested changing the names of things if the
behaviour changes.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
