On 2019-03-07 10:33, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/1/19 3:14 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Maybe have the first note say "This method is deprecated bceause it has serious
>>> risks (see bellow)" and then list the actual risks at the end?
>>
>> Good idea. That may attract the attention of the dogs among the readers.
>
> OK, here's a new version that splits the deprecation notes from the
> discussion of risks. I also fixed the indentation.
The documentation changes appear to continue the theme from the other
thread that the exclusive backup mode is terrible and everyone should
feel bad about it. I don't think there is consensus about that.
I do welcome a more precise description of the handling of backup_label
and a better hint in the error message. I think we haven't gotten to
the final shape there yet, especially for the latter. I suggest to
focus on that.
The other changes repeat points already made in nearby documentation.
I think it would be helpful to frame the documentation in a way to
suggest that the nonexclusive mode is more for automation and more
sophisticated tools and the exclusive mode is more for manual or simple
scripted use.
If we do think that the exclusive mode will be removed in PG13, then I
don't think we need further documentation changes. It already says it's
deprecated, and we don't need to justify that at length. But again, I'm
not convinced that that will happen.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services