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

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
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 16:07:06
Message-ID: 20190806160706.GV29202@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greetings,

* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> 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.

I doubt we're going to get to agreement on this, unfortunately.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2019-08-06 16:10:08 Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2019-08-06 15:31:58 Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)