On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 14:45, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> Greetings, > > * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 02:21:49PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > On 27/11/2018 04:46, Andres Freund wrote: > > >> That was my gut reaction as well, but I think David's argument about > > >> existing scripts / workflows being broken due the the recovery.conf > > >> is a good reason to be more aggressive here. > > > > > > But backup scripts are not affected by the recovery.conf changes. > > > > In any of my own backup scripts (yeah!), I don't have any dependency to > > that either. Or perhaps pgBackRest has a dependency in this area? > > If you don't consider your recovery scripts and your backup scripts to > be related then I've really got to wonder how you're regularly testing > your backups to make sure that they're actually valid. > > If you aren't regularly testing your backups then I've got little > sympathy. > > To be clear, pgbackrest doesn't have any dependency here- but it, like > all of the other 3rd party backup solutions and any restore solution > that a user has come up with, are going to have to be changed to deal > with the changes in how recovery works, so this is a good time to make > these changes. > If those tools are updated and the changes all work, that will be good. That isn't the same thing as an argument to remove things in this release. I propose waiting until next release. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
