At Sat, 14 Oct 2023 14:19:42 -0400, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote in > I was recently discussing the complexities of dealing with pg_control > and backup_label with some hackers at PGConf NYC, when David > Christensen commented that backup_label was not a very good name since > it gives the impression of being informational and therefore something > the user can delete. In fact, we see this happen quite a lot, and > there have been some other discussions about it recently, see [1] and > [2]. I bounced the idea of a rename off various hackers at the > conference and in general people seemed to think it was a good idea. > > Attached is a patch to rename backup_label to recovery_control. The
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. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
