Docs for pg_basebackup needs v17 note for incremental backup
Hackers,
Should the following paragraph in the docs be modified to point out minimum
server version of v17 for incremental backups?
pg_basebackup works with servers of the same or an older major version,
down to 9.1. However, WAL streaming mode (-X stream) only works with server
version 9.3 and later, and tar format (--format=tar) only works with server
version 9.5 and later.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/app-pgbasebackup.html
David J.
Is there seriously not a single person in the past three weeks who has seen
this and not had the minute to spare to say "yes, this should be
documented"?
David J.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 8:13 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
Show quoted text
Hackers,
Should the following paragraph in the docs be modified to point out
minimum server version of v17 for incremental backups?pg_basebackup works with servers of the same or an older major version,
down to 9.1. However, WAL streaming mode (-X stream) only works with
server version 9.3 and later, and tar format (--format=tar) only works
with server version 9.5 and later.https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/app-pgbasebackup.html
David J.
On 2025-02-05 We 7:59 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
Is there seriously not a single person in the past three weeks who has
seen this and not had the minute to spare to say "yes, this should be
documented"?David J.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 8:13 PM David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:Hackers,
Should the following paragraph in the docs be modified to point
out minimum server version of v17 for incremental backups?pg_basebackup works with servers of the same or an older major
version, down to 9.1. However, WAL streaming mode (|-X stream|)
only works with server version 9.3 and later, and tar format
(|--format=tar|) only works with server version 9.5 and later.https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/app-pgbasebackup.html
David J.
(Please don't top-post, even on yourself)
People get busy. For example, many prominent hackers spent most of the
last week at various conferences. There are also other things happening
less publicly that are claiming people's time.
FWIW, I think that this should probably be documented.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thursday, February 6, 2025, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
On 2025-02-05 We 7:59 PM, David G. Johnston wrote
People get busy. For example, many prominent hackers spent most of the
last week at various conferences. There are also other things happening
less publicly that are claiming people's time.
Those prominent hackers are getting the benefit of me being one of the more
prolific community question takers which lets them spend more time hacking.
While I’m not entitled to anything I suggest you all consider that a
failure to acknowledge my patch requests is frustrating enough for me that
I’m about to just give up and walk away, leaving you all to deal with those
user questions more frequently. The vast majority of emails get responses
in some form with a day or so and lots of patches have gone in outside the
commitfest process within days of initial reporting while I play by the
rules and am a large contributor to the community but presently have 7
patches languishing in limbo, most without a single comment for or against.
This is just one of the more clear-cut ones that doesn’t even take a senior
hacker to deal with and, frankly, whomever put in incremental backup should
have seen the title and dealt with it immediately, even if I didn’t copy
them, IMO.
David J.
On 6 Feb 2025, at 15:43, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2025, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
People get busy. For example, many prominent hackers spent most of the last week at various conferences. There are also > > other things happening less publicly that are claiming people's time.
Those prominent hackers are getting the benefit of me being one of the more prolific community question takers which lets them spend more time hacking. While I’m not entitled to anything I suggest you all consider that a failure to acknowledge my patch requests is frustrating enough for me that I’m about to just give up and walk away, leaving you all to deal with those user questions more frequently. The vast majority of emails get responses in some form with a day or so and lots of patches have gone in outside the commitfest process within days of initial reporting while I play by the rules and am a large contributor to the community but presently have 7 patches languishing in limbo, most without a single comment for or against.
I don't think anyone on this list will contest that you do a lot of important
work, and any failure to reply should not be seen as a comment on that work. I
for one appreciate and value your contributions both in terms of code as well
as user support.
Sometimes emails pass by without any replies, it's not the usual case but it
happens, and in this case the mail flew under the radar.
I'd be happy to help getting this in, do you have a suggested wording?
--
Daniel Gustafsson
On 2025-Jan-13, David G. Johnston wrote:
Hackers,
Should the following paragraph in the docs be modified to point out minimum
server version of v17 for incremental backups?pg_basebackup works with servers of the same or an older major version,
down to 9.1. However, WAL streaming mode (-X stream) only works with server
version 9.3 and later, and tar format (--format=tar) only works with server
version 9.5 and later.
Yes, absolutely.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:46 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
I'd be happy to help getting this in, do you have a suggested wording?
Thank you.
Attached.
David J.
Attachments:
v1-0001-Doc-pg_basebackup-incremental-requires-v17-server.patchtext/x-patch; charset=US-ASCII; name=v1-0001-Doc-pg_basebackup-incremental-requires-v17-server.patchDownload
From fc9768fa1de17529cddc3f3ac1fba208f7500083 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "David G. Johnston" <David.G.Johnston@Gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 10:58:57 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Document pg_basebackup incremental backup requires v17
server.
---
doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_basebackup.sgml | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_basebackup.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_basebackup.sgml
index c2d721208b..9659f76042 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_basebackup.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_basebackup.sgml
@@ -1005,10 +1005,11 @@ PostgreSQL documentation
<para>
<application>pg_basebackup</application> works with servers of the same
- or an older major version, down to 9.1. However, WAL streaming mode (<literal>-X
- stream</literal>) only works with server version 9.3 and later, and tar format
+ or older major version, down to 9.1. However, WAL streaming mode (<literal>-X
+ stream</literal>) only works with server version 9.3 and later, the tar format
(<literal>--format=tar</literal>) only works with server version 9.5
- and later.
+ and later, and incremental backup (<literal>--incremental</literal>) only works
+ with server version 17 and later.
</para>
<para>
--
2.34.1
On 27 Feb 2025, at 19:06, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:46 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se <mailto:daniel@yesql.se>> wrote:
I'd be happy to help getting this in, do you have a suggested wording?
Thank you.
Attached.
Patch LGTM so I've applied it.
--
Daniel Gustafsson