|From:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|To:||Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org|
|Cc:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Verify Checksums during Basebackups|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 3/24/18 10:32 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 23.03.2018, 17:43 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
>> Am Freitag, den 23.03.2018, 10:54 -0400 schrieb David Steele:
>>> In my experience actual block errors are relatively rare, so there
>>> aren't likely to be more than a few in a file. More common are
>>> overwritten or transposed files, rogue files, etc. These produce a lot
>>> of output.
>>> Maybe stop after five?
> The attached patch does that, and outputs the total number of
> verification failures of that file after it got sent.
>> I'm on board with this, but I have the feeling that this is not a very
>> common pattern in Postgres, or might not be project style at all. I
>> can't remember even seen an error message like that.
>> Anybody know whether we're doing this in a similar fashion elsewhere?
> I tried to have look around and couldn't find any examples, so I'm not
> sure that patch should go in. On the other hand, we abort on checksum
> failures usually (in pg_dump e.g.), so limiting the number of warnings
> does makes sense.
> I guess we need to see what others think.
Well, at this point I would say silence more or less gives consent.
Can you provide a rebased patch with the validation retry and warning
limiting logic added? I would like to take another pass through it but I
think this is getting close.
|Next Message||Amit Langote||2018-03-30 04:24:19||Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2018-03-30 03:19:53||Re: Foreign keys and partitioned tables|