On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 2:27 PM David Steele <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/18/26 15:26, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 07:35:47AM +0000, David Steele wrote: > >> You are correct -- the copy of pg_control needs to happen before > >> do_pg_backup_stop(). An older version of this patch saved pg_control in > >> backup_state which made the prior location safe. However, I missed > moving > >> this code when I moved pg_control out of backup_state. Code review to > the > >> rescue. > > > > Right. I am wondering also if the final result would not be better > > without 0002, actually, focusing only on the "simpler" base backup > > case through the replication protocol, and you are making a good case > > in mentioning it as not absolutely mandatory for base backups that are > > taken through the SQL functions. One could always tweak the flag > > manually in the control file based on the contents taken from the data > > folder. That's more hairy than writing the entire file, for sure, > > still possible. > > Getting even 01 into PG19 would be a great outcome. This would solve the > problem of torn pg_control and deleted backup labels for any backups > made with pg_basebackup and that's going to cover a *lot* of cases. > > It'd be great to have 01 committed. It seems to me like a solid and low cost solution for the torn pg_control (and missed backup lables). These are good improvements for base backups. I also reviewed the 01 patch but have nothing to add to the previous reviewers; looks good to me. --- Cheers, Andy
