On 26/02/19 4:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
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?
+1 to Robert's Management Summary.
ISTM that the onus should be on the patch submitter to provide additions
to pg_basebackup that make it as painless as possible for those people
*not* using pgBackRest to continue making backups. Breaking this is just
not right. Submitting patches that mean that people *must* use
pgBackRest is also not right IMHO.
Finally, Open Source is about is working together to make the a common
project (in this case Poistgres) better - not forcing us to use
something else you have written (even if it is good).
regards
Mark
