On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 02:24:18PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:33:33AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > I don't want to see more users stumbling over the issues with the > > > exclusive backup interface. A better interface exists, and has existed > > > since 9.6. > > > > Do you really think we would be having this discussion if the > > non-exclusive backup method was unequivocally better? It is better for > > some use-cases, and impossible for others. > > Based on Christophe's comment above, anything which required users to > make a change on upgrade to their backup system would be cause to have > this discussion, which likely includes most possible solutions to the > issues with exclusive backup too, unfortunately..
I am not addressing what Christophe said, but rather what you said. We clearly are fine in requiring people to update their software for major releases. I think if there was a way for old backup methods to work at all, this would be a lot simpler converation. > > Also, you can't say it will have no impact for five years on people who > > do not upgrade. The impact will be that they will have no new Postgres > > features for five years. > > I don't think I made the claim that there wouldn't be any impact for > five years, I said they would continue to have support for five years. > > Also, this is exactly what we tell them for any other breaking change > (such as removal of recovery.conf). > > > I am not taking a stance on this issue, but making unclear statements > > isn't helping the discussion. > > It's not my intent to make unclear statements, so I certainly appreicate > you, and anyone else, pointing out when I do. I'm happy to clarify. Good. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
