Re: basebackup checksum verification

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Subject: Re: basebackup checksum verification
Date: 2019-03-28 13:48:15
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:23:01PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I have personally seen real world corruption that involved a page
> image consisting of random noise. Several times. Failing to detect
> blatant corruption is unacceptable IMV.

Yeah, I have seen that as well. If we have a tool not able to detect
checksums failures in any reliable and robust way, then we don't have
something that qualifies as a checksum verification tool.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-03-28 13:50:27 Re: jsonpath
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2019-03-28 13:35:07 Re: amcheck verification for GiST