On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > David, all, > > * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: >> On 3/21/17 2:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >The patch basically looks good to me, but one comment is; >> >backup.sgml (at least the description for "Making a non-exclusive >> >low level backup) seems to need to be updated. >> >> Agreed. Added in the attached patch and rebased on 8027556.
Thanks for updating the patch! -SELECT * FROM pg_stop_backup(false); +SELECT * FROM pg_stop_backup(false [, true ]); I think that it's better to get rid of "[" and "]" from the above because IMO this should be the command example that users actually can run. + If the backup process monitors the WAL archiving process independently, + the second parameter (which defaults to true) can be set to false to + prevent <function>pg_stop_backup</> from blocking until all WAL is + archived. Instead, the function will return as soon as the stop backup + record is written to the WAL. This option must be used with caution: + if WAL archiving is not monitored correctly then the result might be a + useless backup. You added this descriptions into the step #4 in the non-exclusive backup procedure.. But since the step #5 already explains how pg_stop_backup has to do with WAL archiving, I think that it's better to update (or add something like the above descriptions into) the step #5. Thought? + If the backup process monitors the WAL archiving process independently, Can we explain "monitor the WAL archiving process" part a bit more explicitly? For example, "monitor and ensure that all WAL segment files required for the backup are successfully archived". > I've started looking at this. Seems pretty straight-forward and will > try to get it committed later today. Thanks! Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
