On 1/14/22 1:40 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: [snip] > We shouldn't be trying to provide > documentation around how to write a tool like pgbackrest, we should, > instead, have a tool like pgbackrest in core with its own documentation, > as most other RDBMS's do.
That's an excellent solution to this problem.
I still don't really understand what is so great about it. About its only redeeming feature is a declaration that "it is in core" and that newcomers can just default to it without thinking. I'd rather just play favorites and write "use pgbackrest" in our documentation. Or some hybrid approach where we don't just pick one but instead guide people to the community solutions that are out there. I don't think I really want the people responsible for core to spend time on writing end-user backup tooling. Their time is much more valuably spent working on the core product.