On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:47, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Bernd Helmle <maili...@oopsware.de> wrote: >> >> >> --On 3. Februar 2012 13:21:11 +0900 Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> It seems to be more user-friendly to introduce a view like pg_stat_backup >>> rather than the function returning an array. >> >> >> I like this idea. A use case i saw for monitoring backup_label's in the >> past, was mainly to discover a forgotten exclusive pg_stop_backup() (e.g. >> due to broken backup scripts). If the view would be able to distinguish >> both, exclusive and non-exclusive backups, this would be great. > > Agreed. Monitoring an exclusive backup is very helpful. But I wonder > why we want to monitor non-exclusive backup. Is there any use case?
Actually, we can already monitor much of the non-exclusive one through pg_stat_replication. Including the info on when it was started (at least in almost every case, that will be more or less the backend_start time for that one) > If we want to monitor non-exclusive backup, why not pg_dump backup? .. which we can also monitor though pg_stat_activity by looking at application_name (which can be faked of course, but still) > If there is no use case, it seems sufficient to implement the function > which reports the information only about exclusive backup. Yeah, thinking more of it, i think I agree. But the function should then probably be named in such a way that it's clear that we're talking about exclusive backups, e.g. not pg_is_in_backup() but instead pg_is_in_exclusive_backup() (renamed if we change it to return the timestamp instead, of course, but you get the idea) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
