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
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) |