From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: better page-level checksums |
Date: | 2022-06-13 21:44:41 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WznV1wKGPpdquniCAh==rphM26HTCWwP-yqJouJMrX0_pQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 6:16 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > My preference is for an approach that builds on that, or at least
> > doesn't significantly complicate it. So a cryptographic hash or nonce
> > can go in the special area proper (structs like BTPageOpaqueData don't
> > need any changes), but at a page offset before the special area proper
> > -- not after.
> >
> > What disadvantages does that approach have, if any, from your point of view?
>
> I think it would be an extremely good idea to store the extended
> checksum at the same offset in every page. Right now, code that wants
> to compute checksums, or a tool like pg_checksums that wants to verify
> them, can find the checksum without needing to interpret any of the
> remaining page contents. Things get sticky if you have to interpret
> the page contents to locate the checksum that's going to tell you
> whether the page contents are messed up. Perhaps this could be worked
> around if you tried hard enough, but I don't see what we get out of
> it.
Is that the how block-level encryption feature from EDB Advanced Server does it?
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-06-13 21:54:33 | Re: better page-level checksums |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-06-13 21:32:36 | Re: pltcl crash on recent macOS |