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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups
Date: 2019-08-07 01:44:51
Message-ID: 20190807014451.GD2345@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 04:20:43PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 15:45 Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> When agreement cannot be found, perhaps a parameter is in order?
>>
>> That is, have the tool complain about such files by default but with a
>> HINT that it may or may not be a problem, and a switch that makes it stop
>> complaining?
>
> WFM.

Fine by me. I'd also rather not change the behavior that we have now
without the switch.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2019-08-07 02:27:26 Re: no default hash partition
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-08-07 01:37:45 Re: Assertion for logically decoding multi inserts into the catalog