>>To be clear, I wasn't listing requirements. I was having trouble with the >>absolute "There is no way to validate correctness of backup in a general >>case."
I am waiting for response from feature requester on what they expect from verification. Until then, I would rephrase my statement: "I do not see how we can perform correct verification ..." On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 11/1/17 11:33 PM, Stack wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Vladimir Rodionov<vladrodionov@gmail. > com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> There is no way to validate correctness of backup in a general case. > >>> > >>> You can restore backup into temp table, but then what? Read rows > >>> one-by-one > >>> from temp table and look them up > >>> > >> > >> > >> in a primary table? Won't work, because rows can be deleted or modified > >>> since the last backup was done. > >>> > >>> > >>> Replication has a verity table tool. > >> > >> You can ask a cluster not delete rows. > >> > >> You can read at a specific timestamp. > >> > >> Or you could create backups during an extended ITBLL. When ITBLL > >> completes, > >> verify it on src cluster. Create a table from the increment backups. > >> Verify > >> in the restore. > >> > >> Etc. > >> > >> St.Ack > >> > > > > I can definitely see a benefit of a tool which verifies the data > collected > > for a backup which: > > > > 1. Is batch in nature > > 2. Is ad-hoc (not intrinsically run for every backup session) > > 3. Relies/is-built on existing tooling (snapshots or other > > verification-like code) > > > > Thanks Stack. I think this is some good teasing of requirements from an > > otherwise very broad and untenable problem statement that we started with > > (which lead to the knee-jerk). > > > > To be clear, I wasn't listing requirements. I was having trouble with the > absolute "There is no way to validate correctness of backup in a general > case." which is then seemingly being used to beat down any request for > verification tooling/testing that shows backup/restore works properly. > Good on you Josh, > S >
