Re: Return pg_control from pg_backup_stop().

Hi Corey,

On 3/19/26 04:00, Corey Huinker wrote:
>     Whatever gets committed for PG19 I'll write a followup patch to
>     describe
>     the hazards of reading pg_control and generally how to get a good copy.
>     However, this will be complicated enough that the best answer will
>     likely be to use pg_basebackup or some other reputable backup software.
>     I don't love this -- I feel like the low-level interface should be
>     usable with such hazards.
> 
> Surya Poondla and I had decided on this patchset as a pair-reviewing 
> exercise. However, events have overtaken us, and several other people 
> have chimed in expressing the same concerns that we had observed but 
> hadn't yet completed our review. 

Thank you both for having a look!

 > All of the main concerns that we had > found up to this point have 
been addressed in the lastest patchset,
> except for the trivial observation that the ereport() uses the old style 
> and doesn't need the set of parens around (errmsg(), errhint()). 

Grep shows there are lots of messages with the new style but many more 
in the old style. Presumably they are only being updated as they are 
modified. Do you happen to know the commit or message thread where this 
policy was started? I've been searching but it is such a generic search 
term.

I've updated the message style in the new patches.

> Patches 
> apply clean, tests pass, test coverage seems sufficient, we're happy 
> with the wording of the documentation, in short there really isn't a 
> whole lot for us to add to the review, and for that reason we're 
> removing our names from the list of reviewers in the commitfest app.

It seems to me you've still done a review. Confirming what the other 
reviewers found is good info to have.

Regards,
-David