Re: Online verification of checksums

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:19 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 01:11:40PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On 2019-03-28 21:09:22 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> >> I agree that the current patch might have some corner-cases where it
> >> does not guarantee 100% accuracy in online mode, but I hope the current
> >> version at least has no more false negatives.
> >
> >False positives are *bad*. We shouldn't integrate code that has them.
> >
>
> Yeah, I agree. I'm a bit puzzled by the reluctance to make the online mode
> communicate with the server, which would presumably address these issues.
> Can someone explain why not to do that?
>

I agree that this effort seems better spent on fixing those issues there
(of which many are the same), and then re-use that.

FWIW I've initially argued against that, believing that we can address
> those issues in some other way, and I'd love if that was possible. But
> considering we're still trying to make that work reliably I think the
> reasonable conclusion is that Andres was right communicating with the
> server is necessary.
>
> Of course, I definitely appreciate people are working on this, otherwise
> we wouldn't be having this discussion ...
>

+1.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>