| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: basebackup: do not verify checksums on pages written before enabling checksums |
| Date: | 2026-08-17 13:52:49 |
| Message-ID: | aoMSMUUcNXJH4Djv@bdtpg |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 03:15:43PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 17 Aug 2026, at 14:54, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > +$node->stop;
> > +$node->corrupt_page_checksum($fcorrupt, 0);
> > +$node->start;
> >
> > The test stops and restarts the node before taking the backup, which resets
> > lastChecksumChangeRecPtr.
> >
> > Should we also test that verification resumes while lastChecksumChangeRecPtr is
> > still set?
>
> corrupt_page_checksum() only works reliably when the cluster is turned off,
Oh right, Doh, I missed that.
> a
> reliable corrupt-checksum mechanism for an online cluster could for sure be
> done but seems a bit more invasive at this point.
Yeah. Maybe one option could be to add an injection point in verify_page_checksum(),
just after:
if (!backup_checksums_verifiable(start_lsn))
return true;
and before pg_checksum_page(), then attach an "error" action for the post transition
backup? That would cover verification resuming while lastChecksumChangeRecPtr is
still set, if we think it is worth testing.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2026-08-17 13:53:26 | Re: Reduce WAL volume for heap tuple hint bits |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-08-17 13:52:27 | macOS + gcc + meson + --werror is broken |