> Isn't the intent to ensure we don't waste time/space creating a > useless backup of something that is, I suppose, already corrupted?
Space is one benefit, yep. The other reason is to avoid giving users a false sense of security. A user would be very frustrated to find out at restore-time that the failsafe backup they've been relying on is useless. Better to surface that information at backup time when the source collection is healthy and the backup can be retried, etc. On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:18 AM Bruno Roustant <bruno.roust...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Isn't the intent to ensure we don't waste time/space creating a > useless backup of something that is, I suppose, already corrupted? > > That's right. And I didn't read the code enough; a clear effort has been > put here since the last time I read the code, to make all implementations > consistent to verify the checksum. > > Hum, this is annoying for directory-based encryption. The only way becomes > to have an encryption extension for each and all different implementations. > Less clean than a FilterBackupRepository. >
