| From: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: backup manifests |
| Date: | 2019-11-20 05:28:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAGPqQf2cu2FbmCPZo4jM0UcaB=V-gkr9Zci5RQ0qpAMD05p6qw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 7:19 PM Andrew Dunstan <
andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 11/19/19 5:00 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
> >
> >
> > My colleague Suraj did testing and noticed the performance impact
> > with the checksums. On further testing, he found that specifically with
> > sha its more of performance impact.
> >
> >
>
> I admit I haven't been following along closely, but why do we need a
> cryptographic checksum here instead of, say, a CRC? Do we think that
> somehow the checksum might be forged? Use of cryptographic hashes as
> general purpose checksums has become far too common IMNSHO.
>
Yeah, maybe. I was thinking to give the user an option to choose checksums
algorithms (SHA256. CRC, MD5, etc), so that they are open to choose what
suites for their environment.
If we decide to do that than we need to store the checksums algorithm
information in the manifest file.
Thoughts?
>
> cheers
>
>
> andrew
>
>
> --
> Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
>
--
Rushabh Lathia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2019-11-20 05:30:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-11-20 05:16:13 | Re: logical decoding : exceeded maxAllocatedDescs for .spill files |