On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 9:19 PM Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > This is exactly it. I don't agree that we can, or should, treat every > sensible thing that we realize about what the archive command or the > backup tool should be doing as some bug in our documentation that has to > be backpatched. > If you're serious about continuing on this path, it strikes me that the > next step would be to go review all of the above mentioned tools, > identify all of the things that they do and the checks that they have, > and then craft a documentation patch to add all of those- for both > archive command and pg_start/stop_backup.
1) I'm not saying that every single check that every single tools currently does is a requirement for a safe command and/or should be documented 2) I don't think that there are thousands and thousands of requirements, as you seem to imply 3) I still don't understand why you think that having a partial knowledge of what makes an archive_command safe scattered in the source code of many third party tools is a good thing But what better alternative are you suggesting? Say that no ones knows what an archive_command should do and let people put a link to their backup solution in the hope that they will eventually converge to a safe solution that no one will be able to validate?