From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Online verification of checksums |
Date: | 2019-03-19 20:49:06 |
Message-ID: | 20190319204906.kglh62lt4yvffjzh@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-03-19 13:00:50 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> As it stands, the logic seems to give more false confidence than
> anything else.
To demonstrate that I ran a loop that verified that a) a normal backend
query using the tale detects the corruption b) pg_basebackup doesn't.
i=0;
while true; do
i=$(($i+1));
echo attempt $i;
dd if=/dev/urandom of=/srv/dev/pgdev-dev/base/13390/16384 bs=8192 count=1 conv=notrunc 2>/dev/null;
psql -X -c 'SELECT * FROM corruptme;' 2>/dev/null && break;
~/build/postgres/dev-assert/vpath/src/bin/pg_basebackup/pg_basebackup -X fetch -F t -D - -c fast > /dev/null || break;
done
(excuse the crappy one-off sh)
had, during ~12k iterations, always detected the corruption in the
backend, and never via pg_basebackup. Given the likely LSNs in a
cluster, that's not too surprising.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | legrand legrand | 2019-03-19 21:00:15 | [survey] New "Stable" QueryId based on normalized query text |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-03-19 20:00:50 | Re: Online verification of checksums |