Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups
Date: 2018-10-24 05:31:37
Message-ID: 20181024053137.GL1658@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 08:56:32PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> All of this pie-in-the-sky about what pluggable storage might have is
> just hand-waving, in my opinion, and not worth much more than that. I
> hope (and suspect..) that the actual pluggable storage that's being
> worked on doesn't do any of this "just drop a file somewhere" because
> there's a lot of downsides to it- and if it did, it wouldn't be much
> more than what we can do with an FDW, so why go through and add it?

Well, there is no point in enforcing a rule that something is forbidden
if if was never implied and never documented (the rule here is to be
able to drop custom files into global/, base/ or pg_tblspc.). Postgres
is highly-customizable, I would prefer if features in core are designed
so as we keep things extensible, the checksum verification for base
backup on the contrary restricts things.

So, do we have other opinions about this thread?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-10-24 08:08:22 Re: Unordered wait event ClogGroupUpdate
Previous Message Kuntal Ghosh 2018-10-24 05:29:35 Re: Unordered wait event ClogGroupUpdate