| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups |
| Date: | 2019-08-06 14:58:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20190806145815.GU29202@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Michael Banck (michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de) wrote:
> Independently of the whitelist/blacklist question, I believe
> pg_checksums should not error out as soon as it encounters a weird looking
> file, but either (i) still checksum it or (ii) skip it? Or is that to be
> considered a pilot error and it's fine for pg_checksums to fold?
imv, random files that we don't know about are exactly 'pilot error' to
be complained about.. This is exactly why the whitelist idea falls
over.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-08-06 15:13:37 | Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2019-08-06 14:35:58 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |