Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: 2018-11-27 23:01:21
Message-ID: 20181127230121.GQ1716@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 05:45:41PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> This doesn't exactly change my opinion regarding this discussion and I'd
> rather we revert the "whitelist" patch and use the very minimal patch
> from here:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20181012013918.GA30064%40paquier.xyz

Believe me or not, but we have spent so much energy on this stuff that I
am ready to give up on the whitelist patch and focus on other business.
This doesn't change a couple of things though, so it is not *just* a
simple revert with the patch you mention applied:
- Adding a test for tablespaces makes sense.
- skipfile should be called after making sure that we work on a file.
- temporary files and temporary paths should be ignored.
- it is necessary to exclude EXEC_BACKEND files.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2018-11-27 23:03:03 Re: Accounting of zero-filled buffers in EXPLAIN (BUFFERS)
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2018-11-27 22:59:34 Re: Handling of REGRESS_OPTS in MSVC for regression tests