On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:53:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: > > > Note that we have not marked them as deprecated. We're just giving > warnings > > > that they will be deprecated. > > > > But I think that is being said here is that maybe they won't be > > deprecated, at least not any time soon. And therefore maybe we > > shouldn't say so. > > > > Frankly, I think that's right. It is one thing to say that the new > > method is preferred - +1 for that. But the old method is going to > > continue to be used by many people for a long time, and in some cases > > will be superior. That's not something we can deprecate, unless I'm > > misunderstanding the situation. > > I agree with Robert. One the one hand we are saying pg_stop_backup() > doesn't work well in psql because you get those two file contents output > that you have to write, and on the other hand we are saying we are going > to deprecate the method that does work well in psql? I must be missing > something too, as that makes no sense. > I don't agree. I don't see how "making a backup using psql" is more important than "making a backup without potentially dangerous sideeffects". But if others don't agree, could one of you at least provide an example of how you'd like the docs to read in a way that doesn't deprecate the unsafe way but still informs the user properly? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
