Re: backup manifests - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Rushabh Lathia
Subject Re: backup manifests
Date
Msg-id CAGPqQf2cu2FbmCPZo4jM0UcaB=V-gkr9Zci5RQ0qpAMD05p6qw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: backup manifests  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 7:19 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

On 11/19/19 5:00 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>
>
> My colleague Suraj did testing and noticed the performance impact
> with the checksums.   On further testing, he found that specifically with
> sha its more of performance impact.  
>
>

I admit I haven't been following along closely, but why do we need a
cryptographic checksum here instead of, say, a CRC? Do we think that
somehow the checksum might be forged? Use of cryptographic hashes as
general purpose checksums has become far too common IMNSHO.

Yeah, maybe.  I was thinking to give the user an option to choose checksums
algorithms (SHA256. CRC, MD5, etc),  so that they are open to choose what
suites for their environment.

If we decide to do that than we need  to store the checksums algorithm
information in the manifest file.

Thoughts?




cheers


andrew


--
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



--
Rushabh Lathia

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: logical decoding : exceeded maxAllocatedDescs for .spill files
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum