| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <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: | 2019-03-28 13:48:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20190328134815.GC2558@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:23:01PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I have personally seen real world corruption that involved a page
> image consisting of random noise. Several times. Failing to detect
> blatant corruption is unacceptable IMV.
Yeah, I have seen that as well. If we have a tool not able to detect
checksums failures in any reliable and robust way, then we don't have
something that qualifies as a checksum verification tool.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-28 13:50:27 | Re: jsonpath |
| Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2019-03-28 13:35:07 | Re: amcheck verification for GiST |