On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 06:56 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 19:40 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > >> <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> > This doesn't contain any changes to pg_start_backup() yet, that's a > >> > separate issue and still under discussion. > >> > >> I'm thinking of changing pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup so that > >> they just check that wal_level >= 'archive', and changing pg_stop_backup > >> so that it doesn't wait for archiving when archive_mode is OFF. > >> > >> This change is very simple and enables us to take a base backup for SR > >> even if archive_mode is OFF. Thought? > > > > Makes sense. > > > > I'm wondering whether this could cause problems with people taking hot > > backups that aren't aimed at SR. Perhaps we could have 2 new functions > > whose names are more closely linked to the exact purpose: > > pg_start_replication_copy() etc.. > > which then act exactly as you suggest. > > Hmm. That seems a bit complicated. Why can't we just let people use > the existing functions the way they always have?
We can, but I already gave a reason why we should not. IIRC it was you that suggested changing the names of things if the behaviour changes. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers