Re: odd buildfarm failure - "pg_ctl: control file appears to be corrupt"

On 10/11/23 21:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 12:25:34PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> I'm planning to push 0002 (retries in frontend programs, which is
>> where this thread began) and 0004 (add missing locks to SQL
>> functions), including back-patches as far as 12, in a day or so.
>>
>> I'll abandon the others for now, since we're now thinking bigger[1]
>> for backups, side stepping the problem.
> 
> FWIW, 0003 looks like a low-risk improvement seen from here, so I'd be
> OK to use it at least for now on HEAD before seeing where the other
> discussions lead.  0004 would be OK if applied to v11, as well, but I
> also agree that it is not a big deal to let this branch be as it is
> now at this stage if you feel strongly this way.

Agreed on 0002 and 0004, though I don't really think a back patch of 
0004 to 11 is necessary. I'd feel differently if there was a single 
field report of this issue.

I would prefer to hold off on applying 0003 to HEAD until we see how [1] 
pans out.

Having said that, I have a hard time seeing [1] as being something we 
could back patch. The manipulation of backup_label is simple enough, but 
starting a cluster without pg_control is definitely going to change some 
things. Also, the requirement that backup software skip copying 
pg_control after a minor release is not OK.

If we do back patch 0001 is 0003 really needed? Surely if 0001 works 
with other backup software it would work fine for pg_basebackup.

Regards,
-David

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1330cb48-4e47-03ca-f2fb-b144b49514d8%40pgmasters.net