On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 02:29:13AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > + * write a backup history file with the same name. > > So more than one backup history files with the same name > but the diffferent content can be created and archived. > Isn't this problematic because the backup history file that > users want to use later might be overwritten unexpectedly?
Yeah, that's the intention behind the patch. Would that actually happen in practice though? We would talk about two backups running simultaneously on a standby, which would overlap with each other to generate a file aimed only at being helpful for debugging purposes, and we provide no information now for backups taken from standbys. We could of course make that logic a bit smarter by checking if there is an extsing file with the same name and create a new file with a different name. But is that worth the complication? That's where I am not convinced, and that's the reason why this patch is doing things this way. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature