| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2019-03-27 00:23:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznVgwUR0O1OPGKt3VsKAyEynReZ6rjsRn5XO+S6PjbqyA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 5:10 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Bogus might be a bit too harsh, but yeah - failure to reliably detect obviously
> invalid checksums when the LSN just happens to be high due to randomness is not
> a good thing. We'll still detect pages corrupted in other places, but this is
> rather unfortunate.
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.
Can't we do better here without great difficulty? There are plenty of
generic things that you we could do that can verify that almost any
type of initialized page is at least somewhat sane. For example, you
can verify that line pointers indicate that tuples are
non-overlapping.
That said, Andres' approach sounds like the way to go to me.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2019-03-27 00:26:26 | RE: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-03-27 00:22:13 | Re: speeding up planning with partitions |