Re: Updated backup APIs for non-exclusive backups - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 09:17:22AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 08:15:16PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > I've pushed this version, and also added the item from the Brussels
> > > developer meeting to actually rewrite the main backup docs to the open
> > > items so they are definitely not forgotten for 9.6.
> >
> > Here's that PostgreSQL 9.6 open item:
> >
> > * Update of backup documentation (assigned to Bruce at [
> > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDay_2016_Developer_Meeting
> > Brussels Developer Meeting], but others are surely allowed to work on it as
> > well)
> > ** Made required by 7117685461af50f50c03f43e6a622284c8d54694 since the
> > current documentation is now incorrect
> >
> > Unless Bruce endorsed this development strategy, I think it unfair for
> > commit
> > 7117685 to impose a deadline on his backup.sgml project.  Did commit
> > 7117685
> >
>
> I agree that's a horrible wording. What it meant to imply was a deadline
> for *me* to help take that off Bruce's shoulders before then while also
> opening the doors for others to work on it should they want. Re-reading it
> now I can see that's not at all what it says. I'll reword (or rather,
> remove most of that, since it's been discussed separately and doesn't
> actually need to go on the open items list which is a list and not a
> discussion)

Ahh.  Your original wording did admit your interpretation; I just didn't think
of that interpretation.

> > The chapter already does describe pg_basebackup before describing
> > pg_start_backup; what else did the plan entail?

> Recommending people to primarily use tried and tested ways of doing backups
> (including a reference to a list, probably on the wiki, of known external
> tools that "do things the right way", such as backrest or barman) rather
> than focusing on examples that aren't necessarily even correct, and
> certainly not complete.
>
> Mentioning the actual problems of exclusive base backups. (And obviously
> talk about how using pg_start_backup/pg_stop_backup now makes it possible
> to do "low level" backups without the risks of exclusive backups -- which
> is the "incomplete" part from my note.
>
> More clearly outlining backup vs dump, and possibly (I can't actually
> remember if we decided the second step) put base backups before pg_dump
> since the topic is backups.

Unless you especially want to self-impose the same tight resolution schedule
that 9.6 regressions experience, let's move this to the "Non-bugs" section.
Which do you prefer?  I don't think the opportunity for more documentation in
light of 7117685 constitutes a regression, and I don't want "Open Issues" to
double as a parking lot for slow-moving non-regressions.