At Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:21:41 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote in
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 11:26:41AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > From that point of view, there's no downside to removing from the
> > server the old syntax for BASE_BACKUP and the old protocol for taking
> > backups. We can't remove anything from pg_basebackup, because it is
> > our practice to make new versions of pg_basebackup work with old
> > versions of the server. But the reverse is not true: an older
> > pg_basebackup will categorically refuse to work with a newer server
> > version. Therefore keeping the code for this stuff around in the
> > server has no value ... unless there is out-of-core code that (a) uses
> > the BASE_BACKUP command and (b) wouldn't immediately adopt the new
> > syntax and protocol anyway. If there is, we might want to keep the
> > backward-compatibility code around in the server for a few releases.
> > If not, we should probably nuke that code to simplify things and
> > reduce the maintenance burden.
>
> This line of arguments looks sensible from here, so +1 for this
> cleanup in the backend as of 15~. I am not sure if we should worry
> about out-of-core tools that use replication commands, either, and the
> new grammar is easy to adapt to.
>
> FWIW, one backup tool maintained by NTT is pg_rman, which does not use
> the replication protocol AFAIK:
> https://github.com/ossoc-db/pg_rman
> Perhaps Horiguchi-san or Fujita-san have an opinion on that.
# Oh, the excessive 'o' perplexed me:p
Thanks for pining. AFAICS, as you see, pg_rman doesn't talk
basebackup protocol (nor even pg_basebackup command) as it supports
inremental backup. So there's no issue about the removal of old
syntax on our side.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
