| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |
| Date: | 2020-04-11 23:21:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20200411232116.GB2250@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 02:48:05PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't agree with any of that. Combining the manifest validation with
> checksum validation halves the IO. It allows to offload some of the
> expense of verifying page level checksums from the primary.
>
> And all of the operations require iterating through data directories,
> classify files that are part / not part of a normal data directory, etc.
The last time we had the idea to use _verify_ in a tool name, the same
tool has been renamed one year after as we found new use cases for
it, aka pg_checksums. Cannot the same be said with pg_validatebackup?
It seems to me that it could be interesting for some users to build a
manifest after a backup is taken, using something like a --build
option with pg_validatebackup.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-11 23:36:25 | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-11 23:08:17 | Re: pg_basebackup, manifests and backends older than ~12 |