Hi,
On 2019-02-24 17:19:22 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> You say above that the new interface is unquestionably an improvement
FWIW, I think we didn't design it even remotely as well as we ought to
have. It was both a mistake to not offer a version of non-exclusive
backups that works with a client connection (for integration with the
TSMs of this world), and it was a mistake not to offer a commandline
tool that does the non-exclusive pg/start backup.
> I really, honestly, believe what we need to *stop* doing is trying to
> drag along support for old/deprecated interfaces after we've introduced
> new ones, thus avoiding these arguments and the time spent on them, and
> the time spent dealing with implementing and documenting new APIs around
> old ones. The only thing it seems to unquestionably do is make us argue
> about when we are going to *finally* rip out the old/deprecated API (or
> interface, or whatever you want to call it).
While I agree that we should remove non-exclusive backups, I VEHEMENTLY
oppose the unconditionality of the above statement. Yes, it's annoying
to keep interfaces around, but unnecessarily inflicting pain to everyone
also is annoying.
That's not to say we shouldn't be better at announcing and then
following through on the deprecation of old interfaces.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
