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? Thanks, nm -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
