* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2016-02-10 13:46:05 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Per discussionat the developer meeting in Brussels, here's a patch that > > > makes some updates to the backup APIs, to support non-exclusive backups > > > without using pg_basebackup. > > > > Thanks for following through with this! > > > > > * If the client disconnects with a non-exclusive backup running, the > > backup > > > is automatically aborted. This is the same thing that pg_basebackup does. > > > To use these non-exclusive backups the backup software will have to > > > maintain a persistent connection to the database -- something that should > > > not be a problem for any of the modern ones out there (but would've been > > > slightly trickier back in the days when we suggested shellscripts) > > > > I think we might want to make this one optional, but I'm not going to > > fight super hard for it. > > Not sure what you're referring to here. Do you mean being able to make a > non-exclusive backup while not maintaining a connection? That's going to > make things a *lot* more complicated, as we'd have to invent something like > "backup slots" similar to what we're doing with replication slots. I doubt > it's worth all that work and complexity.
Hrmmm. If that's the case then perhaps you're right. I liked the general idea of not having to maintain a TCP connection during the entire backup (TCP connections can be annoyingly finicky in certain environments...), but I'm not sure it's worth a lot of additional complexity. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
