Re: Doc: Move standalone backup section, mention -X argument
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Doc: Move standalone backup section, mention -X argument |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwYb=ohBYvzWFM0d4fULUo11xWtdPreY3vK3=fR9NZo9Nw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Doc: Move standalone backup section, mention -X argument (Benoit Lobréau <benoit.lobreau@dalibo.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Doc: Move standalone backup section, mention -X argument
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 1:54 AM Benoit Lobréau <benoit.lobreau@dalibo.com> wrote:
I don’t think pg_basebackup fits naturally under the "File System Level
Backup" section. I considered creating a "Standalone Physical Backup"
section with two subsections: FS-level backups and pg_basebackup, but
that didn’t feel right either.
Aside from the name choice this is what I propose, so can you elaborate on what doesn't feel right? You cannot have both "Standalone Physical Backup" and "File System Level Backup" co-exist so maybe that was it - not realizing that your "new" section is just my proposal?
What I find most problematic about the current state of the
documentation is that this solution is buried in the "Tips and Examples"
section.
I'll agree with that too;
Making it a sect2 under File System Level Backup is also a solution to your "buried" complaint.
What if we just move the "Standalone Hot Backups" up one level and
rename the level 2 section ?
My initial annoyance was having the following sentence in a section named, in part, PITR.
"These are backups that cannot be used for point-in-time recovery."
Which suggests the advice is fundamentally misplaced when in PITR sect2.
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: