* Michael Paquier (michael@paquier.xyz) wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 02:21:49PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 27/11/2018 04:46, Andres Freund wrote: > >> That was my gut reaction as well, but I think David's argument about > >> existing scripts / workflows being broken due the the recovery.conf > >> is a good reason to be more aggressive here. > > > > But backup scripts are not affected by the recovery.conf changes. > > In any of my own backup scripts (yeah!), I don't have any dependency to > that either. Or perhaps pgBackRest has a dependency in this area?
If you don't consider your recovery scripts and your backup scripts to be related then I've really got to wonder how you're regularly testing your backups to make sure that they're actually valid.
If you aren't regularly testing your backups then I've got little sympathy.
To be clear, pgbackrest doesn't have any dependency here- but it, like all of the other 3rd party backup solutions and any restore solution that a user has come up with, are going to have to be changed to deal with the changes in how recovery works, so this is a good time to make these changes.
If those tools are updated and the changes all work, that will be good.
That isn't the same thing as an argument to remove things in this release.
I propose waiting until next release.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
