Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups

Greetings,

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 15:45 Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:07 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> * Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
>> > On 2019-08-06 10:58:15 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > > * Michael Banck (michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de) wrote:
>> > > > Independently of the whitelist/blacklist question, I believe
>> > > > pg_checksums should not error out as soon as it encounters a weird
>> looking
>> > > > file, but either (i) still checksum it or (ii) skip it? Or is that
>> to be
>> > > > considered a pilot error and it's fine for pg_checksums to fold?
>> > >
>> > > imv, random files that we don't know about are exactly 'pilot error'
>> to
>> > > be complained about.. This is exactly why the whitelist idea falls
>> > > over.
>> >
>> > I still think this whole assumption is bad, and that you're fixing
>> > non-problems, and creating serious usability issues with zero benefits.
>>
>> I doubt we're going to get to agreement on this, unfortunately.
>>
>
> When agreement cannot be found, perhaps a parameter is in order?
>
> That is, have the tool complain about such files by default but with a
> HINT that it may or may not be a problem, and a switch that makes it stop
> complaining?
>

WFM.

Thanks!

Stephen

>