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@pgbackrest.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).
