Re: [PATCH] Verify Checksums during Basebackups

Hi!

On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 05:27:21PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> It might be a micro-optimisation, but ISTM that we shouldn't do the
> basename(palloc(fn)) in is_heap_file() unless we actually need it -- so not
> at the top of the function. (And surely "." and ".." should not occur here?
> I think that's a result of copy/paste from the online checksum patch?
>
> We also do exactly the same basename(palloc(fn)) in sendFile(). Can we
> find a way to reuse that duplication? Perhaps we want to split it into the
> two pieces already out in sendFile() and pass it in as separate parameters?

I've done the latter now, although it looks a bit weird that the second
argument data is a subset of the first. I couldn't find another way to
not have it done twice, though.

> If not then this second one should at least only be done inside the if
> (verify_checksums).

We can't have both, as we need to call the is_heap_file() function in
order to determine whether we should verify the checksums.

> There is a bigger problem next to that though -- I believe basename() does
> not exist on Win32. I haven't tested it, but there is zero documentation of
> it existing, which usually indicates it doesn't. That's the part that
> definitely needs to get fixed.
>
> I think you need to look into the functionality in port/path.c, in
> particular last_dir_separator()?

Thanks for the pointer, I've used that now; I mentioned before that
basename() might be a portability hazard, but couldn't find a good
substitute myself.

V6 of the patch is attached.

Michael

--
Michael Banck
Projektleiter / Senior Berater
Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171
Fax: +49 2166 9901-100
Email: michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de

credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080
USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer