Re: storing an explicit nonce - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: storing an explicit nonce
Date
Msg-id 20211007170944.GG5475@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: storing an explicit nonce  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: storing an explicit nonce  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct  7, 2021 at 12:56:22PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Oct  7, 2021 at 12:32:16PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:26 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > We rely on it today, e.g. for the control file.
> > 
> > I think that's the only place, though. We can't rely on it for data
> > files because base backups don't go through shared buffers, so reads
> > and writes can get torn in memory and not just on sector boundaries.
> 
> Uh, do backups get torn and later used?

Are you saying a base backup could read a page from the file system and
see a partial write, even though the write is written as 8k?  I had not
thought about that.

I think this whole discussion is about whether we need full page images
for hint bit changes.  I think we do if we use the LSN for the nonce (in
the old patch), and probably need it for hint bit changes when using
block cipher modes (XTS) if we feel basebackup could read only part of a
16-byte page change.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Dilger
Date:
Subject: Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers)
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers)