| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Online verification of checksums |
| Date: | 2019-03-05 03:12:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20190305031206.GC3156@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 03:08:09PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I still don't understand what issue you see in how basebackup verifies
> checksums. Can you point me to the explanation you've sent after 11 was
> released?
The history is mostly on this thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20181020044248.GD2553@paquier.xyz
> So you have a workload/configuration that actually results in data
> corruption yet we fail to detect that? Or we generate false positives?
> Or what do you mean by "100% safe" here?
What's proposed on this thread could generate false positives. Checks
which have deterministic properties and clean failure handling are
reliable when it comes to reports.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-03-05 03:24:14 | Re: bgwriter_lru_maxpages limits in PG 10 sample conf |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-05 03:04:40 | Re: libpq debug log |