On Sat, 2004-07-17 at 00:57, Bruce Momjian wrote: > OK, I think I have some solid ideas and reasons for them. >
Sorry for taking so long to reply... > First, I think we need server-side functions to call when we start/stop > the backup. The advantage of these server-side functions is that they > will do the required work of recording the pg_control values and > creating needed files with little chance for user error. It also allows > us to change the internal operations in later releases without requiring > admins to change their procedures. We are even able to adjust the > internal operation in minor releases without forcing a new procedure on > users. Yes, I think we should go down this route. ....there's a "but" and that is we don't absolutely need it for correctness....and so I must decline adding it to THIS release. I don't imagine I'll stop be associated with this code for a while yet.... Can we recommend that users should expect to have to call a start and end backup routine in later releases? Don't expect you'll agree to that.. > > Second, I think once we start a restore, we should rename recovery.conf > to recovery.in_progress, and when complete rename that to > recovery.done. If the postmaster starts and sees recovery.in_progress, > it will fail to start knowing its recovery was interrupted. This allows > the admin to take appropriate action. (I am not sure what that action > would be. Does he bring back the backup files or just keep going?) > Superceded by Tom's actions. Two states are required: start and stop. Recovery isn't going to be checkpoint-restartable anytime soon, IMHO. Best regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly