Fujii,
* Fujii Masao (masao.fujii@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * David Steele (david@pgmasters.net) wrote:
> >> On 3/21/17 2:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> >The patch basically looks good to me, but one comment is;
> >> >backup.sgml (at least the description for "Making a non-exclusive
> >> >low level backup) seems to need to be updated.
> >>
> >> Agreed. Added in the attached patch and rebased on 8027556.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch!
>
> -SELECT * FROM pg_stop_backup(false);
> +SELECT * FROM pg_stop_backup(false [, true ]);
>
> I think that it's better to get rid of "[" and "]" from the above because
> IMO this should be the command example that users actually can run.
Using the '[' and ']' are how all of the optional arguments are
specified in the documentation, see things like current_setting() in our
existing documentation:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/functions-admin.html
> + If the backup process monitors the WAL archiving process independently,
> + the second parameter (which defaults to true) can be set to false to
> + prevent <function>pg_stop_backup</> from blocking until all WAL is
> + archived. Instead, the function will return as soon as the stop backup
> + record is written to the WAL. This option must be used with caution:
> + if WAL archiving is not monitored correctly then the result might be a
> + useless backup.
>
> You added this descriptions into the step #4 in the non-exclusive
> backup procedure.. But since the step #5 already explains how
> pg_stop_backup has to do with WAL archiving, I think that it's better
> to update (or add something like the above descriptions into)
> the step #5. Thought?
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
> + If the backup process monitors the WAL archiving process independently,
>
> Can we explain "monitor the WAL archiving process" part a bit more
> explicitly? For example, "monitor and ensure that all WAL segment files
> required for the backup are successfully archived".
Sure, makes sense. I'll add some language along those lines.
> > I've started looking at this. Seems pretty straight-forward and will
> > try to get it committed later today.
>
> Thanks!
My apologies if you had intended to look at committing this, I just
noticed that it hadn't been 'claimed' yet in the CF app and did so to
move forward with it. I didn't mean to step on anyone's 'toes'.
Thanks!
Stephen