| 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>, Yilin Zhang <jiezhilove(at)126(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: | 2026-08-18 12:39:42 |
| Message-ID: | aoRSjqimKhpRnRxN@bdtpg |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 11:57:39AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 18 Aug 2026, at 06:18, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > The test does not check that verification resumes while lastChecksumChangeRecPtr
> > is set. Just to be sure, did you skip that on purpose, or did you miss [1]?
>
> Sorry, missed to mention that I skipped it on purpose since I don't really
> foresee it providing much value. That being said, I have been wrong before so
> I ended up adding one in the attached v7 anyway.
Thanks for the update!
I've 2 comments:
=== 1
+ if (hit++ < 5)
+ {
+ if (IS_INJECTION_POINT_ATTACHED("basebackup-fail-checksum-verification"))
+ {
Shouldn't hit be incremented only when the injection point is attached?
=== 2
+ checksum ^= checksum;
That's same as "checksum = 0". That works because 0 is not a valid value but
was the intend to "checksum ^= 1"? to express that we want a different checksum?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2026-08-18 12:42:17 | Re: basebackup: do not verify checksums on pages written before enabling checksums |
| Previous Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2026-08-18 12:36:53 | Re: Allow a prosupport function to be attached to an aggregate |