Greetings, * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: > On 3/1/22 11:32, Nathan Bossart wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:09:13AM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote: > >>On 03/01/22 09:44, David Steele wrote: > >>>Personally, I am in favor of removing it. We change/rename > >>>functions/tables/views when we need to, and this happens in almost every > >>>release. > >> > >>For clarification, is that a suggestion to remove the 'exclusive' parameter > >>in some later release, after using this release to default it to false and > >>reject calls with true? > > > >My suggestion was to remove it in v15. My impression is that David and > >Stephen agree, but I could be misinterpreting their responses. > > I agree and I'm pretty sure Stephen does as well.
Yes, +1 to removing it. > >>That way, at least, there would be a period of time where procedures > >>that currently work (by passing exclusive => false) would continue to work, > >>and could be adapted as time permits by removing that argument, with no > >>behavioral change. > > > >I'm not sure if there's any advantage to kicking the can down the road. At > >some point, we'll need to break existing backup scripts. Will we be more > >prepared to do that in v17 than we are now? We could maintain two sets of > >functions for a few releases and make it really clear in the documentation > >that pg_start/stop_backup() are going to be removed soon (and always emit a > >WARNING when they are used). Would that address your concerns? > > I think people are going to complain no matter what. If scripts are being > maintained changing the name is not a big deal (though moving from exclusive > to non-exclusive may be). If they aren't being maintained then they'll just > blow up a few versions down the road when we remove the compatibility > functions. I don't consider "maintained" and "still using the exclusive backup method" to both be able to be true at the same time. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature