On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 02:24:18PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:33:33AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I don't want to see more users stumbling over the issues with the
> > > exclusive backup interface. A better interface exists, and has existed
> > > since 9.6.
> >
> > Do you really think we would be having this discussion if the
> > non-exclusive backup method was unequivocally better? It is better for
> > some use-cases, and impossible for others.
>
> Based on Christophe's comment above, anything which required users to
> make a change on upgrade to their backup system would be cause to have
> this discussion, which likely includes most possible solutions to the
> issues with exclusive backup too, unfortunately..
I am not addressing what Christophe said, but rather what you said. We
clearly are fine in requiring people to update their software for major
releases. I think if there was a way for old backup methods to work at
all, this would be a lot simpler converation.
> > Also, you can't say it will have no impact for five years on people who
> > do not upgrade. The impact will be that they will have no new Postgres
> > features for five years.
>
> I don't think I made the claim that there wouldn't be any impact for
> five years, I said they would continue to have support for five years.
>
> Also, this is exactly what we tell them for any other breaking change
> (such as removal of recovery.conf).
>
> > I am not taking a stance on this issue, but making unclear statements
> > isn't helping the discussion.
>
> It's not my intent to make unclear statements, so I certainly appreicate
> you, and anyone else, pointing out when I do. I'm happy to clarify.
Good.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +