| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [patch] Fix checksum verification in base backups for zero page headers |
| Date: | 2020-10-26 01:13:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20201026011315.GA2973@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 08:00:08AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, we could try to make the logic a bit more complicated like
> that. However, for any code path relying on a page read without any
> locking insurance, we cannot really have a lot of trust in any of the
> fields assigned to the page as this could just be random corruption
> garbage, and the only thing I am ready to trust here a checksum
> mismatch check, because that's the only field on the page that's
> linked to its full contents on the 8k page. This also keeps the code
> simpler.
A small update here. I have extracted the refactored part for
PageIsVerified() and committed it as that's independently useful.
This makes the patch proposed here simpler on HEAD, leading to the
attached.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| checksums-zeros-v8.patch | text/x-diff | 7.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2020-10-26 01:32:22 | A couple questions about ordered-set aggregates |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2020-10-26 01:05:26 | Re: MultiXact\SLRU buffers configuration |