On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 09:20 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 06:19:03PM -0800, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM wrote: > > > > If we are keeping it then why not make it better? > > > > > Well, non-exclusive backups are better by design in many aspects, so I > > > don't quite see the point in spending time on something that has more > > > limitations than what's already in place. > > > > IMO the main reason for keeping it is backwards compatibility for users > > who have a satisfactory backup arrangement using it. That same argument > > implies that we shouldn't change how it works (at least, not very much). > > There isn't a satisfactory backup approach using it specifically because > of this issue, hence why we should remove it to make it so users don't > run into this.
There is a satisfactory approach, as long as you are satisfied with manually restarting the server if it crashed during a backup. > I don't find the reasons brought up to continue to support exclusive > backup to be at all compelling and the lack of huge issues with the new > way restore works to make it abundently clear that we can, in fact, > remove exclusive backup in a major version change without the world > coming down. I guess the lack of hue and cry was at least to a certain extent because the exclusive backup API was deprecated, but not removed. Yours, Laurenz Albe