| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, daniel(at)yesql(dot)se, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups |
| Date: | 2018-11-20 02:32:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20181120023218.ff2qa7sf5buyg274@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-11-19 21:18:43 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> As has been mentioned elsewhere, there's really a 'right' way to do
> things and allowing PG to be 'extensible' by simply ignoring random
> files showing up isn't that- if we want PG to be extensible in this way
> then we need to provide a mechanism for that to happen.
I still don't buy this argument. I'm giving up here, as I just don't
have enough energy to keep up with this discussion.
FWIW, I think it's bad, that we don't error out on checksum failures in
basebackups by default. And that's only really feasible with a
whitelisting approach.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-11-20 03:02:13 | Re: zheap: a new storage format for PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-11-20 02:18:43 | Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups |