[HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #8043: 9.2.4 doesn't open WAL files from archive, only looks in pg_xlog

2013-05-07 Thread Heikki Linnakangas

On 08.04.2013 18:58, Jeff Bohmer wrote:


On Apr 6, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Jeff Janesjeff.ja...@gmail.com  wrote:


On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.comwrote:


Perhaps we should improve the documentation to make it more explicit that
backup_label must be included in the backup. The docs already say that,
though, so I suspect that people making this mistake have not read the docs
very carefully anyway.


I don't think the docs are very clear on that.  They say This file will of
course be archived as a part of your backup dump file, but will be does
not imply must be.  Elsewhere it emphasizes that the label you gave to
pg_start_backup is written into the file, but doesn't really say what the
file itself is there for.  To me it seems to imply that the file is there
for your convenience, to hold that label, and not as a critical part of the
system.

Patch attached, which I hope can be back-patched.  I'll also add it to
commitfest-Next.


I think this documentation update would be helpful.


Committed that.

- Heikki


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #8043: 9.2.4 doesn't open WAL files from archive, only looks in pg_xlog

2013-04-09 Thread Christoph Berg
Re: Jeff Janes 2013-04-06 
CAMkU=1zvioqvmgbwsshv3dnxmneejmqtq_5hjqlgx8i4ega...@mail.gmail.com
 I don't think the docs are very clear on that.  They say This file will of
 course be archived as a part of your backup dump file, but will be does
 not imply must be.  Elsewhere it emphasizes that the label you gave to
 pg_start_backup is written into the file, but doesn't really say what the
 file itself is there for.  To me it seems to imply that the file is there
 for your convenience, to hold that label, and not as a critical part of the
 system.

This was also my impression, tbh :-/. And the problem just popped up
again independently on #postgresql.

 Patch attached, which I hope can be back-patched.  I'll also add it to
 commitfest-Next.

+1. It makes the documentation clearer on this.

Christoph
-- 
c...@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


[HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #8043: 9.2.4 doesn't open WAL files from archive, only looks in pg_xlog

2013-04-06 Thread Jeff Janes
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.comwrote:


 Incidentally, I bumped into another custom backup script just a few weeks
 back that also excluded backup_label. I don't know what the author was
 thinking when he wrote that, but it seems to be a surprisingly common
 mistake. Maybe it's the label in the filename that makes people think
 it's not important.



I think part of it is the name label', and part of it is that this file is
similar to and hence easily confused with the .history files, which (as far
as I know) truly are there only for human information and not for system
operation.



 Perhaps we should improve the documentation to make it more explicit that
 backup_label must be included in the backup. The docs already say that,
 though, so I suspect that people making this mistake have not read the docs
 very carefully anyway.



I don't think the docs are very clear on that.  They say This file will of
course be archived as a part of your backup dump file, but will be does
not imply must be.  Elsewhere it emphasizes that the label you gave to
pg_start_backup is written into the file, but doesn't really say what the
file itself is there for.  To me it seems to imply that the file is there
for your convenience, to hold that label, and not as a critical part of the
system.

Patch attached, which I hope can be back-patched.  I'll also add it to
commitfest-Next.

Cheers,

Jeff


backup_label_warning_v1.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers