数据库备份: 时间戳为月份-1/零索引,不补零,且会生成重复备份

Describe the Bug

When I upgraded on Saturday, 2026-09-12, the backup file name is db_2026-8-12_20-35-56.sqite

stat config/db/backups/db_2026-8-12_20-35-56.sqlite

File: config/db/backups/db_2026-8-12_20-35-56.sqlite Size: 21716992 Blocks: 42416 IO Block: 4096 regular file Device: 8,1 Inode: 529585 Links: 1 Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 0/ root) Access: 2026-09-15 12:30:47.995058492 -0400 Modify: 2026-09-12 20:35:58.479893142 -0400 Change: 2026-09-12 20:35:58.479893142 -0400 Birth: 2026-09-12 20:35:56.983870134 -0400 Furthermore, there are two non-identical backups, despite upgrading once: .rw-r--r-- 22M 12 Sep 20:35 db_2026-8-12_20-35-56.sqlite .rw-r--r-- 22M 12 Sep 20:36 db_2026-8-12_20-36-2.sqlite

diff db_2026-8-12_20-3*

Binary files db_2026-8-12_20-35-56.sqlite and db_2026-8-12_20-36-2.sqlite differ

stat db_2026-8-12_20-36-2.sqlite

File: db_2026-8-12_20-36-2.sqlite Size: 21716992 Blocks: 42416 IO Block: 4096 regular file Device: 8,1 Inode: 529753 Links: 1 Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 0/ root) Access: 2026-09-15 12:30:47.719054280 -0400 Modify: 2026-09-12 20:36:03.308967432 -0400 Change: 2026-09-12 20:36:03.308967432 -0400 Birth: 2026-09-12 20:36:02.985962465 -0400 Another user also confirmed this observation and that they have a db_2026-0-23_20-25-49.sqlite created in January. To the best of my knowledge, no Gregorian-based civil dating system on the planet uses zero-indexed months so this is inherently confusing, which is obviously absolutely not what you want to deal with if you ever need to actually use one of these backups. Further complicating this is: there are two backups for one upgrade, if I need to use one of these backups, which one of them do I use?

Also, I don't know how these timestamps are being generated (though the zero index hints at JS/Java, see below?), but the lack of zero-padding the digits is just anathema to me (e.g., look at my Grateful Dead concert recordings, bootlegs AND label releases). This is, however, less concerning since there shouldn't be a sorting issue that matters.

Environment

• OS Type & Version: Ubuntu 24.04
• Pangolin Version: 1.20.x > 1.22.2, though it seems to go back much further than that.
• Edition (Community or Enterprise): ee

To Reproduce

Upgrade Pangolin without backups disabled, review filenames of backups.

AI Disclosure

Yeah, I checked with ChatGPT to see if somehow I just never ran across this as a convention before (despite actually being on the ISO-8601 Wikipedia page last week and my clear interest in timestamps given my contribution to this project).

Expected Behavior

zero-padded, normal (i.e., 1-indexed) Gregorian month timestamps for file names in an ISO-8601