On 10/27/26 06:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 10:36:30AM +0000, David Steele wrote:
My hope is that all the eyeballs have caught the only problematic case (2pc)
but we'll need to be careful when adding new files in the future. If all the
examples in the code are correct it should be easier to get it right.
I would bet a coin that somebody will include in the core code files
that break this rule at some future point.
There is no way I am taking that bet.
Perhaps we should be more
aggressive in terms of in-core backend sanity checks. I am not sure
what these would look like, though, and I doubt that such a thing
would be worth the long-term maintenance cost vs the number of issues
avoided.
Hopefully having correct examples to copy from will help, otherwise this
is the purpose of review. I can't think of any way to fool-proof it.
The backpatches for v15 and v16 were not that complicated, as you said
I have just used a boolean to track if we are working on a relation
file or not and expanded sendFile() with one argument. One thing that
I have left out of the picture is v14. It is going to be EOL with the
next round of minors, and the races are edgy enough that I did not see
this branch as worth taking a risk.
Agreed, my worry on putting anything like this into the soon-to-be-EOL
release is that if we get it wrong that's a net negative for that release.
I don't know of any instances of this race actually happening in the
wild, and since pgBackRest has never had the issue I don't have any data
from that side.
Thank you for reviewing and committing!
Regards,
-David
