Re: Improving Physical Backup/Restore within the Low Level API - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Steele
Subject Re: Improving Physical Backup/Restore within the Low Level API
Date
Msg-id df49dd6b-a06f-3fbb-ebf1-d200b9b4783f@pgmasters.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Improving Physical Backup/Restore within the Low Level API  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Improving Physical Backup/Restore within the Low Level API
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/17/23 14:28, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 5:21 PM David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But no, by default, and probably so far as pg_basebackup is concerned, a server crash during backup results in
requiringoutside intervention in order to get the server to restart.
 
> 
> Others may differ, but I think such a proposal is dead on arrival. As
> Laurenz says, that's just reinventing one of the main problems with
> exclusive backup mode.

I concur -- this proposal resurrects the issues we had with exclusive 
backups without solving the issues being debated elsewhere, e.g. torn 
reads of pg_control or users removing backup_label when they should not.

Regards,
-David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: The danger of deleting backup_label
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible