On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 05:58:15PM -0500, David Steele wrote: > The main objections as I recall are that it is much harder for simple backup > scripts and commercial backup integrations to hold a connection to postgres > open and write the backup label separately into the backup.
I don't quite understand why this argument would not hold even today, even if I'd like to think that more people are using pg_basebackup. > I did figure out how to keep the safe part of exclusive backup (not having > to maintain a connection) while removing the dangerous part (writing > backup_label into PGDATA), but it was a substantial amount of work and I > felt that it had little chance of being committed. Which was, I guess, done by storing the backup_label contents within a file different than backup_label, still maintained in the main data folder to ensure that it gets included in the backup? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
