On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:23 PM David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> > I don't understand what you mean here. I thought we were in agreement
> > that verifying contents would cost a lot more. The verification that
> > we can actually do without much cost can only check for missing files
> > in the most recent backup, which is quite weak. pg_verifybackup is
> > available if you want more comprehensive verification and you're
> > willing to pay the cost of it.
>
> I simply meant that it is *possible* to verify the output of
> pg_combinebackup without explicitly verifying all the backups. There
> would be overhead, yes, but it would be less than verifying each backup
> individually. For my 2c that efficiency would make it worth doing
> verification in pg_combinebackup, with perhaps a switch to turn it off
> if the user is confident in their sources.
Hmm, can you outline the algorithm that you have in mind? I feel we've
misunderstood each other a time or two already on this topic, and I'd
like to avoid more of that. Unless you just mean what the patch I
posted does (check if anything from the final manifest is missing from
the corresponding directory), but that doesn't seem like verifying the
output.
> >> I think it is a worthwhile change and we are still a month away from
> >> beta1. We'll see if anyone disagrees.
> >
> > I don't plan to press forward with this in this release unless we get
> > a couple of +1s from disinterested parties. We're now two weeks after
> > feature freeze and this is design behavior, not a bug. Perhaps the
> > design should have been otherwise, but two weeks after feature freeze
> > is not the time to debate that.
>
> It doesn't appear that anyone but me is terribly concerned about
> verification, even in this weak form, so probably best to hold this
> patch until the next release. As you say, it is late in the game.
Added https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/4951/
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
