Re: Return pg_control from pg_backup_stop().

From: David Steele <david(at)pgbackrest(dot)org>
To: Haibo Yan <tristan(dot)yim(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 07:05:06
Message-ID: feb68313-3257-4d9d-8b69-6468e506a61a@pgbackrest.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/17/26 12:16, 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?

Thank you for having a look!

The goal here is only to check for a missing backup_label. The general
problem is that PostgreSQL suggests that removing backup_label might be
a good idea so the user does it:

If you are not restoring from a backup, try removing the file
\"%s/backup_label\"

The user *could* copy a backup_label from another backup and there are
ways we could detect that but I feel that should be material for a
separate patch.

Regards,
-David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kirill Reshke 2026-03-17 07:19:31 Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ)
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2026-03-17 06:58:20 Re: POC: PLpgSQL FOREACH IN JSON ARRAY