On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:53:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net>
> wrote:
> > > Note that we have not marked them as deprecated. We're just giving
> warnings
> > > that they will be deprecated.
> >
> > But I think that is being said here is that maybe they won't be
> > deprecated, at least not any time soon.  And therefore maybe we
> > shouldn't say so.
> >
> > Frankly, I think that's right.  It is one thing to say that the new
> > method is preferred - +1 for that.  But the old method is going to
> > continue to be used by many people for a long time, and in some cases
> > will be superior.  That's not something we can deprecate, unless I'm
> > misunderstanding the situation.
> I agree with Robert.  One the one hand we are saying pg_stop_backup()
> doesn't work well in psql because you get those two file contents output
> that you have to write, and on the other hand we are saying we are going
> to deprecate the method that does work well in psql?  I must be missing
> something too, as that makes no sense.

I don't agree. I don't see how "making a backup using psql" is more
important than "making a backup without potentially dangerous sideeffects".
But if others don't agree, could one of you at least provide an example of
how you'd like the docs to read in a way that doesn't deprecate the unsafe
way but still informs the user properly?

 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Reply via email to