On 3/1/18 11:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > 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.
+1. Given that the history files are not used during restore and are present primarily for debugging purposes, I can't see worrying too much about this unlikely (if possible) race condition. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
