On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 05:58:15PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> The main objections as I recall are that it is much harder for simple backup
> scripts and commercial backup integrations to hold a connection to postgres
> open and write the backup label separately into the backup.
I don't quite understand why this argument would not hold even today,
even if I'd like to think that more people are using pg_basebackup.
> I did figure out how to keep the safe part of exclusive backup (not having
> to maintain a connection) while removing the dangerous part (writing
> backup_label into PGDATA), but it was a substantial amount of work and I
> felt that it had little chance of being committed.
Which was, I guess, done by storing the backup_label contents within a
file different than backup_label, still maintained in the main data
folder to ensure that it gets included in the backup?
--
Michael
