Re: Return pg_control from pg_backup_stop().

From: Haibo Yan <tristan(dot)yim(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgbackrest(dot)org>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Return pg_control from pg_backup_stop().
Date: 2026-03-17 05:16:58
Message-ID: 17DC1346-0CDE-4E39-B110-3D6FB0797AC6@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi David
I have not read the code yet, so this may already be answered there, but I had a question about the proposal itself. This patch protects against a missing backup_label, but what about a wrong one? If a user restores a backup_label file from a different backup, the existence check alone would not detect that. Do we need some consistency check between the returned pg_control copy and the backup_label contents, or is the intended scope here limited to the “missing file” case only?
Regards
Haibo

> On Mar 5, 2026, at 5:27 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgbackrest(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2/20/26 12:47, David Steele wrote:
>> On 2/20/26 10:10, David Steele wrote:
>>> On 8/7/25 05:30, David Steele wrote:
>>>> On 1/24/25 13:43, David Steele wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rebased and improved a comment and an error.
>>>> Rebased to fix breakage caused by the split of func.sgml in 4e23c9e.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rebased to implement simplification added by "Simplify creation of built-in functions with default arguments" (759b03b2).
>
> Rebased on "Simplify creation of built-in functions with non-default ACLs." (f95d73ed).
>
> Regards,
> -David<pgcontrol-flag-v8-01-basebackup.patch><pgcontrol-flag-v8-02-sql.patch>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tender Wang 2026-03-17 05:24:16 [PATCH] Update HandleChildCrash comments
Previous Message Zsolt Parragi 2026-03-17 05:06:08 Re: pg_plan_advice