| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Haibo Yan <tristan(dot)yim(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgbackrest(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Return pg_control from pg_backup_stop(). |
| Date: | 2026-03-17 05:51:12 |
| Message-ID: | abjr0A2IfnBvuHJw@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 10:16:58PM -0700, Haibo Yan wrote:
> 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?
Please note that we use bottom-posting on the lists, as of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Bottom-posting
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2026-03-17 05:51:15 | Re: CAST(... ON DEFAULT) - WIP build on top of Error-Safe User Functions |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-03-17 05:36:48 | Re: tablecmds: reject CLUSTER ON for partitioned tables earlier |