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.
--
Michael