| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: basebackup checksum verification |
| Date: | 2019-03-27 01:04:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20190327010458.qbhffszullqnrra2@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-03-26 21:01:27 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I'm also not convinced that these changes to pg_basebackup will be free
> of issues that may impact users in a negative way, making me concerned
> that we're going to end up doing more harm than good with such a change
> being back-patched. Simply comparing the skipped LSNs to the
> end-of-backup LSN seems much less invasive when it comes to this core
> code, and certainly increases the chances quite a bit that we'll detect
> an issue with corruption in the LSN.
Yea, in the other thread we'd discussed that that might be the correct
course for backpatch, at least initially. But I think the insert/replay
LSN would be the correct LSN to compare to in the basebackup.c case?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-03-27 01:07:20 | Re: basebackup checksum verification |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-03-27 01:01:27 | Re: basebackup checksum verification |