On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:50 PM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > As far as I've seen, the one thing that people have problems with in the > exclusive mode backups are precisely the fact that they have to keep a > persistent conneciton open, and thus it cannot work together with backup > software that is limited to only supporting running a pre- and a post script. > > Something like I have suggested here is to solve *that* problem. I don't > think anybody actually explicitly wants "exclusive backups" -- they want a > backup solution that plugs into their world of pre/post scripts. And if we > can make that one work in a safer way than the current exclusive backups, ohw > is that not an improvement?
Yeah, I guess that's a pretty fair point. I have to confess to having somewhat limited enthusiasm for adding a third mode here, but it might be worth it. It seems pretty well inevitable to me that people are going to forget to end them. I am not sure exactly what the consequences of that will be, but if for example there's a limited number of shared memory slots to store information about these backups, then if you leak any, you'll eventually run out of slots and your backups will start failing. I feel like that's a going to happen to about 75% of the people who try to use this new backup mode at some point in time, but maybe I'm a pessimist.[1] If we could jigger things so that you don't need to stop the backup at all, you only start it, and whether you ever finish copying everything is something about which the system need not know or care, that would be a lot nicer. I'm not sure I see how to do that, though. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company [1] OK, that's not really a "maybe".
