On 4/11/24 03:52, David Steele wrote:
> On 4/11/24 10:23, Tom Kincaid wrote:
>>
>> The extensive Beta process we have can be used to build confidence we
>> need in a feature that has extensive review and currently has no known
>> issues or outstanding objections.
>
> I did have objections, here [1] and here [2]. I think the complexity,
> space requirements, and likely performance issues involved in restores
> are going to be a real problem for users. Some of these can be addressed
> in future releases, but I can't escape the feeling that what we are
> releasing here is half-baked.
>
I haven't been part of those discussions, and that part of the thread is
a couple months old already, so I'll share my view here instead.
I do not think it's half-baked. I certainly agree there are limitations,
and there's all kinds of bells and whistles we could add, but I think
the fundamental infrastructure is corrent and a meaningful step forward.
Would I wish it to handle .tar for example? Sure I would. But I think
it's something we can add in the future - if we require all of this to
happen in a single release, it'll never happen.
FWIW that discussion also mentions stuff that I think the feature should
not do. In particular, I don't think the ambition was (or should be) to
make pg_basebackup into a stand-alone tool. I always saw pg_basebackup
more as an interface to "backup steps" correctly rather than a complete
backup solution that'd manage backup registry, retention, etc.
> Also, there are outstanding issues here [3] and now here [4].
>
I agree with some of this, I'll respond in the threads.
regards
Tomas
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
