On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:19:29PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
! On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 14:50 +0200, Peter wrote:
! > ! An example:
! > !
! > ! - Backup #1 calls "pgpre.sh"
! > ! - Backup #1 starts copying files
! > ! - Backup #2 calls "pgpre.sh".
! > ! This will cancel the first backup.
! > ! - Backup #1 completes copying files.
! > ! - Backup #1 calls "pgpost.sh".
! > ! It will receive an error.
! > ! So it has to invalidate the backup.
! > ! - Backup #2 completes copying files.
! > ! - Backup #2 calls "pgpost.sh".
! > ! It gets a "backup_label" file and completes the backup.
! >
! > That's not true.
!
! Ah, yes, you are right.
Thank You.
! Since "pgpre.sh" and "pgpost.sh" are independent, there
! is no way to tell which of them belongs to which other.
Correct.
! So calling "pgpost.sh" indeed ends the most recently started
! backup and returns "backup_label" accordingly.
!
! That means: the caller of the scripts has to make sure
! not to start a second backup while the first one is running.
Never run two backups in parallel with such an approach, exactly.
And that is one of a couple of likely pitfalls I perceived when
looking at that new API.
We could fix that, but that will then get more complicated - and
people will usually not do that. And that's why I consider that
new API as rather dangerous.
cheerio,
PMc
