On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 19:40 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> > This doesn't contain any changes to pg_start_backup() yet, that's a
>> > separate issue and still under discussion.
>>
>> I'm thinking of changing pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup so that
>> they just check that wal_level >= 'archive', and changing pg_stop_backup
>> so that it doesn't wait for archiving when archive_mode is OFF.
>>
>> This change is very simple and enables us to take a base backup for SR
>> even if archive_mode is OFF. Thought?
>
> Makes sense.
>
> I'm wondering whether this could cause problems with people taking hot
> backups that aren't aimed at SR. Perhaps we could have 2 new functions
> whose names are more closely linked to the exact purpose:
> pg_start_replication_copy() etc..
> which then act exactly as you suggest.
Hmm. That seems a bit complicated. Why can't we just let people use
the existing functions the way they always have?
...Robert
