From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups |
Date: | 2018-10-24 05:31:37 |
Message-ID: | 20181024053137.GL1658@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 08:56:32PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> All of this pie-in-the-sky about what pluggable storage might have is
> just hand-waving, in my opinion, and not worth much more than that. I
> hope (and suspect..) that the actual pluggable storage that's being
> worked on doesn't do any of this "just drop a file somewhere" because
> there's a lot of downsides to it- and if it did, it wouldn't be much
> more than what we can do with an FDW, so why go through and add it?
Well, there is no point in enforcing a rule that something is forbidden
if if was never implied and never documented (the rule here is to be
able to drop custom files into global/, base/ or pg_tblspc.). Postgres
is highly-customizable, I would prefer if features in core are designed
so as we keep things extensible, the checksum verification for base
backup on the contrary restricts things.
So, do we have other opinions about this thread?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-10-24 08:08:22 | Re: Unordered wait event ClogGroupUpdate |
Previous Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2018-10-24 05:29:35 | Re: Unordered wait event ClogGroupUpdate |