On 3/16/25 2:19 PM, vignesh C wrote:
I noticed that Alvaro's comment from [1] is not yet addressed, I have
changed the status of commitfest entry to Waiting on Author, please
address them and change the status back to Needs review.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202502101154.bmb536n
On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 at 02:27, David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> A documentation comment came in [1] causing me to review some of our backup
> documentation and I left the current content and location of the standalone
> backups was odd. I propose to move it to a better place, under file system
> ba
On Monday, February 10, 2025, Álvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2024-Jun-28, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> > A documentation comment came in [1] causing me to review some of our
> backup
> > documentation and I left the current content and location of the
> standalone
> > backups was odd. I propose to m
On 2024-Jun-28, David G. Johnston wrote:
> A documentation comment came in [1] causing me to review some of our backup
> documentation and I left the current content and location of the standalone
> backups was odd. I propose to move it to a better place, under file system
> backups.
Even before
On 1/23/25 4:18 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
Aside from the name choice this is what I propose, so can you elaborate
on what doesn't feel right? You cannot have both "Standalone Physical
Backup" and "File System Level Backup" co-exist so maybe that was it -
not realizing that your "new" sectio
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 1:54 AM Benoit Lobréau
wrote:
> I don’t think pg_basebackup fits naturally under the "File System Level
> Backup" section. I considered creating a "Standalone Physical Backup"
> section with two subsections: FS-level backups and pg_basebackup, but
> that didn’t feel right
Hi,
Initially, I shared your perspective, but I wasn’t entirely on board
with the subdivision you proposed. The more I thought about it and tried
to reshape it, the less convinced I became.
I don’t think pg_basebackup fits naturally under the "File System Level
Backup" section. I considered
I compiled the patch and it worked without any problems.
I think the patch makes sense, because of the structure of the current
docs. It seems more logical to have this section in this part of the
documentation, where it is useful and not only described for another
chapter, because it won't even w
