Re: Rename backup_label to recovery_control - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Rename backup_label to recovery_control
Date
Msg-id ZSy8JHciVl34Iog8@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rename backup_label to recovery_control  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 01:16:42PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Just an idea in a slightly different direction, but I'm wondering if
> we can simply merge the content of backup_label into control file.
> The file is 8192 bytes long, yet only 256 bytes are used. As a result,
> we anticipate no overhead.  Sucha configuration would forcibly prevent
> uses from from removing the backup information.

With the critical assumptions behind PG_CONTROL_MAX_SAFE_SIZE, that
does not sound like a good idea to me.  And that's without the fact
that base backup labels could make the control file theoretically even
larger than PG_CONTROL_FILE_SIZE, even if that's unlikely going to
happen in practice.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: Rename backup_label to recovery_control
Next
From: jian he
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time