On Jun 19 2023, Peter Marshall <[email protected]> wrote: > Could the md5 (or some other signature) of the data be stored in metadata, > and we check > that instead of the Etag on reading? I've only briefly looked at the source - > maybe an > existing header is suitable.
Yes, that is possible in principle but not currently done. We'd have to extend the metadata format to store this checksum. I'm just not convinced that it's worth it, since this effectively duplicates what's already done when using encryption. So perhaps the right answer is to disable ETag checking completely and require encryption to be used? Or disable it when encryption is active, so that it affects cases? Best, -Nikolaus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "s3ql" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/s3ql/87fs6nmdhb.fsf%40vostro.rath.org.
