On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:
> On 2014-01-14 14:40:46 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com > >wrote: > > > > > On 2014-01-14 14:12:46 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > Either way - if we can do this in a safe way, it sounds like a good > idea. > > > > It would be sort of like rsync, except relying on the fact that we > can > > > look > > > > at the LSN and don't have to compare the actual files, right? > > > > > > Which is an advantage, yes. On the other hand, it doesn't fix problems > > > with a subtly broken replica, e.g. after a bug in replay, or disk > > > corruption. > > > > > > > > Right. But neither does rsync, right? > > Hm? Rsync's really only safe with --checksum and with that it definitely > should fix those? > > I think we're talking about difference scenarios. I thought you were talking about a backup taken from a replica, that already has corruption. rsync checksums surely aren't going to help with that? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
