On 15 June 2012 15:54, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Robert Haas <rh...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
