On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 08:15:16PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I've pushed this version, and also added the item from the Brussels
> developer meeting to actually rewrite the main backup docs to the open
> items so they are definitely not forgotten for 9.6.

Here's that PostgreSQL 9.6 open item:

* Update of backup documentation (assigned to Bruce at 
[https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDay_2016_Developer_Meeting Brussels 
Developer Meeting], but others are surely allowed to work on it as well)
** Made required by 7117685461af50f50c03f43e6a622284c8d54694 since the current 
documentation is now incorrect

Unless Bruce endorsed this development strategy, I think it unfair for commit
7117685 to impose a deadline on his backup.sgml project.  Did commit 7117685
indeed make the documentation "incorrect?"  Coverage in the Backup and Restore
chapter would be a good thing, but I don't think that gap alone makes 7117685,
with its reference-only documentation, incorrect.  Did 7117685 impair
documentation in any other respect?

Incidentally, I'm not clear on the extent of Bruce's plans to change backup
documentation.  Relevant meeting note fragment:

  Magnus: We need a new robust API fornon-exclusive backups
  Simon: Keep but deprecate the existing API.
  Need to find a better way to ensure users have the required xlog in backups
  Craig: Our docs are in the wrong order. pg_basebackup should be first, ahead 
of manual methods.
  Action point: Re-arrange backup docs page (Bruce)

The chapter already does describe pg_basebackup before describing
pg_start_backup; what else did the plan entail?


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to