From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
Date: | 2017-01-26 00:38:26 |
Message-ID: | 20170126003826.GC9812@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On 2017-01-25 19:30:08 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Peter Geoghegan (pg(at)heroku(dot)com) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > > > As it is, there are backup solutions which *do* check the checksum when
> > > > backing up PG. This is no longer, thankfully, some hypothetical thing,
> > > > but something which really exists and will hopefully keep users from
> > > > losing data.
> > >
> > > Wouldn't that have issues with torn pages?
> >
> > No, why would it? The page has either been written out by PG to the OS,
> > in which case the backup s/w will see the new page, or it hasn't been.
>
> Uh. Writes aren't atomic on that granularity. That means you very well
> *can* see a torn page (in linux you can e.g. on 4KB os page boundaries
> of a 8KB postgres page). Just read a page while it's being written out.
>
> You simply can't reliably verify checksums without replaying WAL (or
> creating a manual version of replay, as in checking the WAL for a FPW).
Looking through the WAL isn't any surprise and is something we've been
planning to do for other reasons anyway.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-26 00:40:54 | Re: Checksums by default? |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-01-26 00:38:18 | Re: Checksums by default? |