On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 1:54 AM Benoit Lobréau <benoit.lobr...@dalibo.com> wrote:
> I don’t think pg_basebackup fits naturally under the "File System Level > Backup" section. I considered creating a "Standalone Physical Backup" > section with two subsections: FS-level backups and pg_basebackup, but > that didn’t feel right either. > Aside from the name choice this is what I propose, so can you elaborate on what doesn't feel right? You cannot have both "Standalone Physical Backup" and "File System Level Backup" co-exist so maybe that was it - not realizing that your "new" section is just my proposal? > What I find most problematic about the current state of the > documentation is that this solution is buried in the "Tips and Examples" > section. I'll agree with that too; Making it a sect2 under File System Level Backup is also a solution to your "buried" complaint. > What if we just move the "Standalone Hot Backups" up one level and > rename the level 2 section ? My initial annoyance was having the following sentence in a section named, in part, PITR. "These are backups that cannot be used for point-in-time recovery." Which suggests the advice is fundamentally misplaced when in PITR sect2. David J.
