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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY53xEFW_fUtgi4JX9jT4+W10bhp31Ru9572Whr+EeVCg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>>> As it is, there are backup solutions which *do* check the checksum when
>>> backing up PG.  This is no longer, thankfully, some hypothetical thing,
>>> but something which really exists and will hopefully keep users from
>>> losing data.
>>
>> Wouldn't that have issues with torn pages?
>
> Why? What do you foresee here? I would think such backup solutions are
> careful enough to ensure correctly the durability of pages so as they
> are not partially written.

Well, you'd have to keep a read(fd, buf, 8192) performed by the backup
tool from overlapping with a write(fd, buf, 8192) performed by the
backend.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?