| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Online verification of checksums |
| Date: | 2019-03-28 21:19:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20190328211902.GD16397@development |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 01:11:40PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 2019-03-28 21:09:22 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>> I agree that the current patch might have some corner-cases where it
>> does not guarantee 100% accuracy in online mode, but I hope the current
>> version at least has no more false negatives.
>
>False positives are *bad*. We shouldn't integrate code that has them.
>
Yeah, I agree. I'm a bit puzzled by the reluctance to make the online mode
communicate with the server, which would presumably address these issues.
Can someone explain why not to do that?
FWIW I've initially argued against that, believing that we can address
those issues in some other way, and I'd love if that was possible. But
considering we're still trying to make that work reliably I think the
reasonable conclusion is that Andres was right communicating with the
server is necessary.
Of course, I definitely appreciate people are working on this, otherwise
we wouldn't be having this discussion ...
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-03-28 21:47:26 | Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-03-28 20:11:40 | Re: Online verification of checksums |