* Fujii Masao (masao.fu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote:
> >> On 3/21/17 2:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> >The patch basically looks good to me, but one comment is;
> >> >backup.sgml (at least the description for "Making a non-exclusive
> >> >low level backup) seems to need to be updated.
> >>
> >> Agreed.  Added in the attached patch and rebased on 8027556.
> Thanks for updating the patch!
> -SELECT * FROM pg_stop_backup(false);
> +SELECT * FROM pg_stop_backup(false [, true ]);
> I think that it's better to get rid of "[" and "]" from the above because
> IMO this should be the command example that users actually can run.

Using the '[' and ']' are how all of the optional arguments are
specified in the documentation, see things like current_setting() in our
existing documentation:


> +     If the backup process monitors the WAL archiving process independently,
> +     the second parameter (which defaults to true) can be set to false to
> +     prevent <function>pg_stop_backup</> from blocking until all WAL is
> +     archived.  Instead, the function will return as soon as the stop backup
> +     record is written to the WAL.  This option must be used with caution:
> +     if WAL archiving is not monitored correctly then the result might be a
> +     useless backup.
> You added this descriptions into the step #4 in the non-exclusive
> backup procedure.. But since the step #5 already explains how
> pg_stop_backup has to do with WAL archiving, I think that it's better
> to update (or add something like the above descriptions into)
> the step #5. Thought?

That seems pretty reasonable to me.

> +     If the backup process monitors the WAL archiving process independently,
> Can we explain "monitor the WAL archiving process" part a bit more
> explicitly? For example, "monitor and ensure that all WAL segment files
> required for the backup are successfully archived".

Sure, makes sense.  I'll add some language along those lines.

> > I've started looking at this.  Seems pretty straight-forward and will
> > try to get it committed later today.
> Thanks!

My apologies if you had intended to look at committing this, I just
noticed that it hadn't been 'claimed' yet in the CF app and did so to
move forward with it.  I didn't mean to step on anyone's 'toes'.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to