On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 11:26:41AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > From that point of view, there's no downside to removing from the > server the old syntax for BASE_BACKUP and the old protocol for taking > backups. We can't remove anything from pg_basebackup, because it is > our practice to make new versions of pg_basebackup work with old > versions of the server. But the reverse is not true: an older > pg_basebackup will categorically refuse to work with a newer server > version. Therefore keeping the code for this stuff around in the > server has no value ... unless there is out-of-core code that (a) uses > the BASE_BACKUP command and (b) wouldn't immediately adopt the new > syntax and protocol anyway. If there is, we might want to keep the > backward-compatibility code around in the server for a few releases. > If not, we should probably nuke that code to simplify things and > reduce the maintenance burden.
This line of arguments looks sensible from here, so +1 for this cleanup in the backend as of 15~. I am not sure if we should worry about out-of-core tools that use replication commands, either, and the new grammar is easy to adapt to. FWIW, one backup tool maintained by NTT is pg_rman, which does not use the replication protocol AFAIK: https://github.com/ossc-db/pg_rman Perhaps Horiguchi-san or Fujita-san have an opinion on that. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
