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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobHd+-yVJHofSWg=g+=A3EiCN2wsAiEyj7dj1hhevNq9Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:29 PM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> The solution was to simply ignore the checksums of any pages with an LSN
>>= the LSN returned by pg_start_backup().  This means that hot blocks
> may never be checked during backup, but if they are active then any
> problems should be caught directly by PostgreSQL.

I feel like this doesn't fix the problem.  Suppose the backup process
reads part of a block that hasn't been modified in a while, and then
PostgreSQL writes the block, and then the backup process reads the
rest of the block.  The LSN test will not prevent the checksum from
being verified, but the checksum will fail to match.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Next
From: Claudio Freire
Date:
Subject: Re: ParallelFinish-hook of FDW/CSP (Re: [HACKERS] Steps inside ExecEndGather)