On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:23:01PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I have personally seen real world corruption that involved a page
> image consisting of random noise. Several times. Failing to detect
> blatant corruption is unacceptable IMV.
Yeah, I have seen that as well. If we have a tool not
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2019-03-26 21:01:27 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'm also not convinced that these changes to pg_basebackup will be free
> > of issues that may impact users in a negative way, making me concerned
> > that we're going to end up doing mo
Hi,
On 2019-03-26 21:01:27 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I'm also not convinced that these changes to pg_basebackup will be free
> of issues that may impact users in a negative way, making me concerned
> that we're going to end up doing more harm than good with such a change
> being back-patched.
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2019-03-26 20:18:31 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > >>I thought Robert's response was generally good, pointing out that
> > > >>we're talking about this being an issue if the corruption happens in a
> > > >>certain set of bytes. That s
-03-26 19:22:03 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >>>>* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> >>>>> As detailed in
> >>>>> https://postgr.es/m/20190319200050.ncuxejradurjakdc%40alap3.anarazel.de
> >>>>> the way the backend&#
e:
>>> As detailed in
>>> https://postgr.es/m/20190319200050.ncuxejradurjakdc%40alap3.anarazel.de
>>> the way the backend's basebackup checksum verification works makes its
>>> error detection capabilities very dubious.
>>
>>I disagree that it
Hi,
On 2019-03-26 20:18:31 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > >>I thought Robert's response was generally good, pointing out that
> > >>we're talking about this being an issue if the corruption happens in a
> > >>certain set of bytes. That said, I'm happy to see improvements in
> > >>this area but I
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 5:10 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Bogus might be a bit too harsh, but yeah - failure to reliably detect
> obviously
> invalid checksums when the LSN just happens to be high due to randomness is
> not
> a good thing. We'll still detect pages corrupted in other places, but this
gt;> https://postgr.es/m/20190319200050.ncuxejradurjakdc%40alap3.anarazel.de
> >>> the way the backend's basebackup checksum verification works makes its
> >>> error detection capabilities very dubious.
> >>
> >>I disagree that it's 'very dubiou
backend's basebackup checksum verification works makes its
> error detection capabilities very dubious.
I disagree that it's 'very dubious', even with your analysis.
I really don't know what to say. The current algorithm is flat out
bogus.
Bogus might be a bit too
Hi,
On 2019-03-26 19:22:03 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > As detailed in
> > https://postgr.es/m/20190319200050.ncuxejradurjakdc%40alap3.anarazel.de
> > the way the backend's basebackup checksum verifi
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> As detailed in
> https://postgr.es/m/20190319200050.ncuxejradurjakdc%40alap3.anarazel.de
> the way the backend's basebackup checksum verification works makes its
> error detection capabilities very dubious.
I disagre
Hi,
As detailed in
https://postgr.es/m/20190319200050.ncuxejradurjakdc%40alap3.anarazel.de
the way the backend's basebackup checksum verification works makes its
error detection capabilities very dubious.
I think we need to fix this before the next set of backbranch releases,
or at the
13 matches
Mail list logo
