Greetings Alban, * Alban Hertroys (haram...@gmail.com) wrote: > In fact, I don't see it mentioned explicitly anywhere, but are we actually > looking at a problem?
From the discussion in the google barman group, it's clear that the file shouldn't be zero bytes in this specific case. > I'm not convinced by the argument that a CRC check of a 0 byte file on a > standby would not detect corruption. At the least, the CRC would be different > or we would be left with a CRC on the master that we can't match any CRC's on > the slave to if the file is larger on the master. As discussed, files on the primary can be different at a byte level from those on replicas and still be perfectly valid and correct, for a variety of reasons from hint bit differences to differences due to the replica not being at exactly the same point as the primary. > If CRC's can be relied on to detect corruption (which they were designed to > do), then that answers Edson's question. The checksums included in PG are page-level and therefore there simply isn't one to look at if the file is zero bytes. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
