On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Vladimir Rusinov <vrusi...@google.com> wrote:
> Usability review > > ============ > > > Patch sounds like a good idea and does what it supposed to do. /me in DBA > hat will be happy to have it. > > However, it makes '-x' parameter a bit confusing/surprising: specifying it > will be equivalent to '-X fetch' which is surprising regression from the > new default. > This seems like a good idea, really. Given that we already break a number of other things around backups and replication in this release, it seems like a good time. I definitely think removing it is what we should do -- let's not redefine it to mean streaming, let's just get rid of -x altogether, and have people use -X streaming|fetch|none. What do others feel about this? One comment about docs: > > > Includes the required transaction log files (WAL files) in the > > backup. This will include all transaction logs generated during > > - the backup. If this option is specified, it is possible to start > > - a postmaster directly in the extracted directory without the need > > - to consult the log archive, thus making this a completely > standalone > > - backup. > > + the backup. Unless the option <literal>none</literal> is > specified, > > + it is possible to start a postmaster directly in the extracted > > + directory without the need to consult the log archive, thus > > + making this a completely standalone backup. > > </para> > > <para> > > I suggest "method <literal>none</literal>" instead of "option > <literal>none</literal>". I found the word "option" confusing in that > sentence. > > > Sounds reasonable, will fix. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
