| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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> |
| Subject: | Re: Online verification of checksums |
| Date: | 2019-03-29 15:40:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20190329154033.vticzlku36mppxb4@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-03-29 11:38:02 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> The server-side function would essentially lock the page against i/o,
> re-read it off disk into an independent location, unlock the page, then
> calculate the checksum and report back?
Right. I think there's a few minor variations of how this could be done,
but that'd be the basic approach.
> That seems like it would be reasonable to me. Wouldn't it make sense to
> then have pg_basebackup use that same function..?
Yea, probably. Or at least reuse the majority of it, I can imagine the
error reporting would be a bit different (sqlstates et al are needed for
the basebackup.c case, but not the pg_checksum case).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-29 15:41:26 | Re: PostgreSQL pollutes the file system |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-03-29 15:38:02 | Re: Online verification of checksums |