On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:38 PM David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> > FWIW, if you weren't selling backrest quite so hard everywhere backups
> > are mentioned, I'd find this thread a lot more convicing.
>
> pgBackRest has not used exclusive backups since the new API was
> introduced in 9.6 so this is not an issue for our users.
>
> Over time we have contributed back to Postgres in areas we thought could
> be improved based on our work on the pgBackRest project: 6ad8ac60,
> 9fe3c644, 017e4f25, 78874531, 449338cc, 98267ee8, 8694cc96, 920a5e50,
> c37b3d08, 5fc1670b, b981df4c. This does not include the various backup
> related patches that we have reviewed.
>
> If promoting pgBackRest were our primary concern then it would be in our
> interest to allow Postgres exclusive backups to stay broken and
> pg_basebackup to be as primitive as possible.
Hmm, so what you're saying is that you'd like to disable an API that
some non-backrest users are relying upon but which no backrest users
are relying upon. And you don't understand why some non-backrest
users are opposed to that plan. Is that a correct summary of your
position?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
