On Fri, 2020-09-25 at 14:50 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:32 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-09-22 at 14:17 +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > > In "25.3.3.2. Making An Exclusive Low-Level Backup", you said that "The > > > exclusive backup method is deprecated and should be avoided. Prior to > > > PostgreSQL 9.6, this was the only low-level method available, but it is > > > now > > > recommended that all users upgrade their scripts to use non-exclusive > > > backups". But in the example in "25.3.6.1. Standalone Hot Backups" you use > > > the exclusive version of backup command. Is it a mistake or not? > > > > Yes, that's true. > > Well, technically it is *correct*. It's just rather silly that we are using > the deprecated API in the example. > > > How about the attached patch? > > Perhaps that is too complicated, but I have no idea how to make it simpler. > > For this example, can't we just show two sessions. That is, "in a psql, run > pg_start_backup(). > Then in a different session, copy all the files, and then back in psql run > pg_stop_backup()" or such? > > This is still just an example of a low level operation, where the > recommendation is (and is there iirc) > to use a different tool for it already.
I thought the point of the example is to show a workable script that could perform a backup and could be used as a starting point to develop your own backup solution. (I know that there are people who think writing your own backup solution is evil, but I am not one of them.) If we replace that with a verbal description of how to do it, the example just duplicates what is already documented. In that case I would opt for simply removing the example. Yours, Laurenz Albe
