On 15 June 2012 15:54, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org> wrote:
>>>> New SQL functons pg_backup_in_progress() and pg_backup_start_time()
>>>>
>>>> Darold Gilles, reviewed by Gabriele Bartolini and others, rebased by
>>>> Marco Nenciarini. Stylistic cleanup and OID fixes by me.
>>>
>>> How well is the term "on-line exclusive backup" really settled with
>>> people? I wonder if we need to add a specific note to the docs saying
>>> that the function doesn't consider streaming base backups at all, and
>>> that one should refer to pg_stat_replication for info about those? Or
>>> really, should the function be pg_exclusive_backup_in_progress()
>>> perhaps?
>>
>> Well, if we think that the term "exclusive backup" is not going to be
>> easily comprehensible, then sticking that into the function name isn't
>> going to help us much. I think that's just wordiness for the sake of
>> being wordy. I do agree that we could probably improve the clarity of
>> the documentation along the lines you suggest.
>
> It would alert people to the existance of the term, and thus help
> those who didn't actually read the documentation.
>
> Which actually makes an argument for making that change *anyway*,
> because right now the function is incorrectly named. A function named
> pg_backup_in_progress() should answer the question "is a backup in
> progress". And it doesn't answer that question.
Maybe pg_is_in_backup_mode, which would match the naming convention of
pg_is_in_recovery, and would claim that a backup is actually underway.
--
Thom