On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:08:23PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:22:27AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Well, if we *don't* do the rewrite before we release it, then we have to > > > instead put information about the new version of the functions into the > > old > > > structure I think. > > > > > > So I think it's an open issue. > > > > Works for me... > > > > [This is a generic notification.] > > > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Magnus, > > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this > > open > > item. If that responsibility lies elsewhere, please let us know whose > > responsibility it is to fix this. Since new open items may be discovered > > at > > any time and I want to plan to have them all fixed well in advance of the > > ship > > date, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Please > > present, within 72 hours, a plan to fix the defect within seven days of > > this > > message. Thanks. > > > > I won't have time to do the bigger rewrite/reordeirng by then, but I can > certainly commit to having the smaller updates done to cover the new > functionality in less than a week. If nothing else, that'll be something > for me to do on the flight over to pgconf.us.
Thanks for that plan; it sounds good.
Here's a suggested patch.
There is some duplication between the non-exclusive and exclusive backup sections, but I wanted to make sure that each set of instructions can just be followed top-to-bottom.
I've also removed some tips that aren't really necessary as part of the step-by-step instructions in order to keep things from exploding in size.
Finally, I've changed references to "backup dump" to just be "backup", because it's confusing to call them something with dumps in when it's not pg_dump. Enough that I got partially confused myself while editing...
