Re: Online verification of checksums

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Online verification of checksums
Date: 2018-09-29 08:27:43
Message-ID: 7fd462c9-27c1-4ba9-3cf2-83f9bf0ed7ef@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 09/26/2018 05:15 PM, Michael Banck wrote:
> ...
>
> New version 5 attached.
>

I've looked at v5, and the retry/recheck logic seems OK to me - I'd
still vote to keep it consistent with what pg_basebackup does (i.e.
doing the LSN check first, before looking at the checksum), but I don't
think it's a bug.

I'm not sure about the other issues brought up (ENOENT, short reads). I
haven't given it much thought.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2018-09-29 08:34:40 Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-09-29 07:58:57 Re: Use durable_unlink for .ready and .done files for WAL segment removal