| From: | Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, desmodemone <desmodemone(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup |
| Date: | 2014-08-12 14:25:38 |
| Message-ID: | 53EA23E2.6040306@2ndquadrant.it |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Il 12/08/14 15:25, Claudio Freire ha scritto:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Marco Nenciarini
> <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> wrote:
>> To declared two files identical they must have same size,
>> same mtime and same *checksum*.
>
> Still not safe. Checksum collisions do happen, especially in big data sets.
>
IMHO it is still good-enough. We are not trying to protect from a
malicious attack, we are using it to protect against some *casual* event.
Even cosmic rays have a not null probability of corrupting your database
in a not-noticeable way. And you can probably notice it better with a
checksum than with a LSN :-)
Given that, I think that whatever solution we choose, we should include
checksums in it.
Regards,
Marco
--
Marco Nenciarini - 2ndQuadrant Italy
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)it | www.2ndQuadrant.it
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | MauMau | 2014-08-12 14:29:58 | Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations |
| Previous Message | Gabriele Bartolini | 2014-08-12 14:17:30 | Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup |