On 26/02/19 5:41 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings Mark,
>
> * Mark Kirkwood (mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz) wrote:
>> ISTM that the onus should be on the patch submitter to provide additions to
>> pg_basebackup that make it as painless as possible for those people *not*
>> using pgBackRest to continue making backups. Breaking this is just not
>> right. Submitting patches that mean that people *must* use pgBackRest is
>> also not right IMHO.
> I'm sorry that there's some confusion here- to be clear, no one is
> required to use pgBackRest. pg_basebackup works quite well and wouldn't
> be impacted by the changes proposed no this thread. The arguments
> against removing the exclusive backup feature don't have anything to do
> with pg_basebackup.
>
Ah yes (checks pg_basbackup code), you are correct! Reading this thread
I thought I saw a comment to the effect that pg_basebackup was being
broken, hence the less than impressed post.
Your relentless bashing of people doing their own backups and heavy
marketing of pgBackRest - unfortunately - made it easy for me to believe
that this was a possibility that you might see as ok. So - apologies for
the misunderstanding, however less marketing of your own product would
avoid me jumping to the wrong conclusion.
regards
Mark