Message-ID: <aa892ab1-48f7-78a2-44b8-76b4495b77d2@pgmasters.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:45:35 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Subject: Re: The danger of deleting backup_label
Content-Language: en-US
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
References: <1330cb48-4e47-03ca-f2fb-b144b49514d8@pgmasters.net>
 <ZRY2vdlKJqhuZqGs@paquier.xyz>
 <0e088834-aa39-ed09-3ec7-31c13c629a20@pgmasters.net>
 <CA+hUKGLok_wrosp8Q6DA+mkhtWyQSEwPSKP=2p5bnLZC=FGpaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <65825be1-e79a-46f4-9d9f-4ff95a10e378@pgmasters.net>
 <e05f20f9-6f91-9a70-efab-9a2ae472e65d@pgmasters.net>
 <CA+TgmoZkdrWyd7KiPFHaJBg+tjM3UFrqOBK1EtG3NtVs97-7Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9dc67363-5200-7395-3ddb-b50171800bc6@pgmasters.net>
 <CA+TgmoZ=HcNRv+wcPqMY+yYWE+VwOnPeq6tdHgRzire6NJg6vQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <12bf9438-f229-5048-dd91-440f3b1880e9@pgmasters.net>
 <CA+TgmoYYcGC-aErHmYyqggST4Q5SKqeZDxikgg_BTi=3tZGJQw@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYYcGC-aErHmYyqggST4Q5SKqeZDxikgg_BTi=3tZGJQw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aa892ab1-48f7-78a2-44b8-76b4495b77d2%40pgmasters.net>
Precedence: bulk

On 10/16/23 15:06, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 1:00 PM David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>> After some agonizing (we hope) they decide to delete backup_label and,
>> wow, it just works! So now they merrily go on their way with a corrupted
>> cluster. They also remember for the next time that deleting backup_label
>> is definitely a good procedure.
>>
>> The idea behind this patch is that deleting backup_label would produce a
>> hard error because pg_control would be missing as well (if the backup
>> software did its job). If both pg_control and backup_label are present
>> (but pg_control has not been loaded with the contents of backup_label,
>> i.e. it is the running copy from the backup cluster) we can also error.
> 
> I mean, I think we're just going in circles, here. I did and do
> understand, but I didn't and don't agree. You're hypothesizing a user
> who is willing to do ONE thing that they shouldn't do during backup
> restoration (namely, remove backup_label) but who won't be willing to
> do a SECOND thing that they shouldn't do during backup restoration
> (namely, run pg_resetwal). 

In my experience the first case is much more likely than the second. 
Your experience may vary.

Anyway, I think they are pretty different. Deleting backup label appears 
to give a perfectly valid restore. Running pg_resetwal is more clearly 
(I think) the nuclear solution.

> I understand that you feel differently, and that's fine, but I don't
> think our disagreement here stems from me being confused. I just ...
> don't agree.

Fair enough, we don't agree.

Regards,
-David