Hi,
On 2020-03-29 20:47:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Maybe that was the wrong idea, but I thought people would like the
> idea of running cheaper checks first. I wasn't worried about
> concurrent modification of the backup because then you're super-hosed
> no matter what.
I do like that approach.
To be clear: I'm suggesting the additional crosscheck not because I'm
not concerned with concurrent modifications, but because I've seen
filesystem per-inode metadata and the actual data / extent-tree
differ. Leading to EOF reported while reading at a different place than
what the size via stat() would indicate.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
