| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups |
| Date: | 2019-08-06 15:13:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20190806151337.iujm6c25sn4e72yl@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-08-06 10:58:15 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Banck (michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de) wrote:
> > Independently of the whitelist/blacklist question, I believe
> > pg_checksums should not error out as soon as it encounters a weird looking
> > file, but either (i) still checksum it or (ii) skip it? Or is that to be
> > considered a pilot error and it's fine for pg_checksums to fold?
>
> imv, random files that we don't know about are exactly 'pilot error' to
> be complained about.. This is exactly why the whitelist idea falls
> over.
I still think this whole assumption is bad, and that you're fixing
non-problems, and creating serious usability issues with zero benefits.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Jungwirth | 2019-08-06 15:28:05 | Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-08-06 14:58:15 | Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups |