On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:23 PM David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > > I don't understand what you mean here. I thought we were in agreement > > that verifying contents would cost a lot more. The verification that > > we can actually do without much cost can only check for missing files > > in the most recent backup, which is quite weak. pg_verifybackup is > > available if you want more comprehensive verification and you're > > willing to pay the cost of it. > > I simply meant that it is *possible* to verify the output of > pg_combinebackup without explicitly verifying all the backups. There > would be overhead, yes, but it would be less than verifying each backup > individually. For my 2c that efficiency would make it worth doing > verification in pg_combinebackup, with perhaps a switch to turn it off > if the user is confident in their sources.
Hmm, can you outline the algorithm that you have in mind? I feel we've misunderstood each other a time or two already on this topic, and I'd like to avoid more of that. Unless you just mean what the patch I posted does (check if anything from the final manifest is missing from the corresponding directory), but that doesn't seem like verifying the output. > >> I think it is a worthwhile change and we are still a month away from > >> beta1. We'll see if anyone disagrees. > > > > I don't plan to press forward with this in this release unless we get > > a couple of +1s from disinterested parties. We're now two weeks after > > feature freeze and this is design behavior, not a bug. Perhaps the > > design should have been otherwise, but two weeks after feature freeze > > is not the time to debate that. > > It doesn't appear that anyone but me is terribly concerned about > verification, even in this weak form, so probably best to hold this > patch until the next release. As you say, it is late in the game. Added https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/4951/ -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com