| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Suraj Kharage <suraj(dot)kharage(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tels <nospam-pg-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: backup manifests |
| Date: | 2020-03-30 00:59:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20200330005919.m2dayh7zmtul3dtl@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-03-29 20:47:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Maybe that was the wrong idea, but I thought people would like the
> idea of running cheaper checks first. I wasn't worried about
> concurrent modification of the backup because then you're super-hosed
> no matter what.
I do like that approach.
To be clear: I'm suggesting the additional crosscheck not because I'm
not concerned with concurrent modifications, but because I've seen
filesystem per-inode metadata and the actual data / extent-tree
differ. Leading to EOF reported while reading at a different place than
what the size via stat() would indicate.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2020-03-30 01:05:17 | Re: backup manifests |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-03-30 00:57:01 | Re: [PATCH] Redudant initilization |