At Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:21:41 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote in > 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/ossoc-db/pg_rman > Perhaps Horiguchi-san or Fujita-san have an opinion on that.
# Oh, the excessive 'o' perplexed me:p Thanks for pining. AFAICS, as you see, pg_rman doesn't talk basebackup protocol (nor even pg_basebackup command) as it supports inremental backup. So there's no issue about the removal of old syntax on our side. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
