> On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> The other is Mark's point about "expected file pattern", which seems a
> slippery slope to me. If the pattern is /^[a-zA-Z0-9_.]*$/ then I'm
> okay with it (maybe add a few other punctuation chars); as you say no
> sane extension would use names much weirder than that. But we should
> not be stricter, such as counting the number of periods/underscores
> allowed or where are alpha chars expected (except maybe disallow period
> at start of filename), or anything too specific like that.
What bothered me about skipping files based only on encoding is that it creates hard to anticipate bugs. If extensions
embedsomething, like a customer name, into a filename, and that something is usually ASCII, or usually valid UTF-8, and
getsbacked up, but then some day they embed something that is not ASCII/UTF-8, then it does not get backed up, and
maybenobody notices until they actually *need* the backup, and it’s too late.
We either need to be really strict about what gets backed up, so that nobody gets a false sense of security about what
getsincluded in that list, or we need to be completely permissive, which would include files named in arbitrary
encodings. I don’t see how it does anybody any favors to make the system appear to back up everything until you hit
thisunanticipated case and then it fails.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
