On 3/29/16 2:09 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I had a chat with Heikki, and here's another suggestion: > > 1. We don't touch the current exclusive backups at all, as previously > discussed, other than deprecating their use. For backwards compat. > > 2. For new backups, we return the contents of pg_control as a bytea from > pg_stop_backup(). We tell backup programs they are supposed to write > this out as pg_control.backup, *not* as pg_control. > > 3a. On recovery, if it's an exclusive backup, we do as we did before. > > 3b. on recovery, in non-exclusive backups (determined from > backup_label), we check that pg_control.backup exists *and* that > pg_control does *not* exist. That guards us reasonably against backup > programs that do the wrong thing, and we know we get the correct version > of pg_control. > > 4. (we can still add the stop location to the backup_label file in case > backup programs find it useful, but we don't use it in recovery) > > Thoughts about this approach?
This certainly looks like it would work but it raises the barrier for implementing backups by quite a lot. It's fine for backrest or barman but it won't be pleasant for anyone who has home-grown scripts. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
