Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Date
Msg-id 20170203233125.ywimxdvpjipcblwo@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2017-02-03 17:23:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 1/25/17 6:40 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Obviously, having to bring up a full database is an extra step (one we
> > try to make easy to do), but, sadly, we don't have any way to ask PG to
> > verify all the checksums with released versions, so that's what we're
> > working with.
>
> Wouldn't it be fairly trivial to write an extension that did that though?
>
> foreach r in pg_class where relkind in (...)
>   for (b = 0; b < r.relpages; b++)
>     ReadBufferExtended(..., BAS_BULKREAD);

You can't really see things from other databases that way tho. So you
need to write a tool that iterates all databases and such.  Not that
that's a huge problem, but it doesn't make things easier at least.

(and you need to deal with things like forks, but that's not a huge
issue)

- Andres



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?