On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:38 PM David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > > FWIW, if you weren't selling backrest quite so hard everywhere backups > > are mentioned, I'd find this thread a lot more convicing. > > pgBackRest has not used exclusive backups since the new API was > introduced in 9.6 so this is not an issue for our users. > > Over time we have contributed back to Postgres in areas we thought could > be improved based on our work on the pgBackRest project: 6ad8ac60, > 9fe3c644, 017e4f25, 78874531, 449338cc, 98267ee8, 8694cc96, 920a5e50, > c37b3d08, 5fc1670b, b981df4c. This does not include the various backup > related patches that we have reviewed. > > If promoting pgBackRest were our primary concern then it would be in our > interest to allow Postgres exclusive backups to stay broken and > pg_basebackup to be as primitive as possible.
Hmm, so what you're saying is that you'd like to disable an API that some non-backrest users are relying upon but which no backrest users are relying upon. And you don't understand why some non-backrest users are opposed to that plan. Is that a correct summary of your position? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
