On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 9:19 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> This is exactly it. I don't agree that we can, or should, treat every
> sensible thing that we realize about what the archive command or the
> backup tool should be doing as some bug in our documentation that has to
> be backpatched.
> If you're serious about continuing on this path, it strikes me that the
> next step would be to go review all of the above mentioned tools,
> identify all of the things that they do and the checks that they have,
> and then craft a documentation patch to add all of those- for both
> archive command and pg_start/stop_backup.
1) I'm not saying that every single check that every single tools
currently does is a requirement for a safe command and/or should be
documented
2) I don't think that there are thousands and thousands of
requirements, as you seem to imply
3) I still don't understand why you think that having a partial
knowledge of what makes an archive_command safe scattered in the
source code of many third party tools is a good thing
But what better alternative are you suggesting? Say that no ones
knows what an archive_command should do and let people put a link to
their backup solution in the hope that they will eventually converge
to a safe solution that no one will be able to validate?