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
