Re: Checksums by default?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Checksums by default?
Date: 2017-02-03 23:31:25
Message-ID: 20170203233125.ywimxdvpjipcblwo@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-02-03 17:23:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 1/25/17 6:40 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Obviously, having to bring up a full database is an extra step (one we
> > try to make easy to do), but, sadly, we don't have any way to ask PG to
> > verify all the checksums with released versions, so that's what we're
> > working with.
>
> Wouldn't it be fairly trivial to write an extension that did that though?
>
> foreach r in pg_class where relkind in (...)
> for (b = 0; b < r.relpages; b++)
> ReadBufferExtended(..., BAS_BULKREAD);

You can't really see things from other databases that way tho. So you
need to write a tool that iterates all databases and such. Not that
that's a huge problem, but it doesn't make things easier at least.

(and you need to deal with things like forks, but that's not a huge
issue)

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-02-03 23:44:30 Re: Checksums by default?
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2017-02-03 23:23:15 Re: Checksums by default?