On 2/25/19 12:35 AM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 14:19, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> You say above that the new interface is unquestionably an improvement
>> and here say that we shouldn't deprecate the old one in favor of it
>> (even though we actually already have... but that's beside the point I'm
>> trying to make here), so what you're advocating for is that we keep an
>> old and known broken interface that we know causes real issues even
>> after we've developed a new and unquestionably better one.
>
> Yes, I am advocating exactly that. The reason that I think we need to keep the old one (or, at least, not remove it
assoon as 12)...
Exclusive backup will not be removed for PG12. There wasn't support for
it so I push it out to PG13.
There does appear to be support for removing it in PG13, though, and I'd
like to see that done sooner than later.
> I do think we need a simple, pg_basebackup-level-complexity hot backup tool that allows a forked copy operation, per
Andres'suggestion.
This is a good idea -- but I'm still a bit mystified why the ability to
run a backup in shell script is considered to be a hard requirement.
Just about any language you can name performs non-exclusive backups with
ease -- except shell. Perhaps the problem is with the language?
Regards,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
