On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 04:20:43PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 15:45 Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> When agreement cannot be found, perhaps a parameter is in order?
>>
>> That is, have the tool complain about such files by default but with a
>> HINT that it may or may not be a
Greetings,
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 15:45 Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:07 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
>> > On 2019-08-06 10:58:15 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > > * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de)
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:07 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > On 2019-08-06 10:58:15 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote:
> > > > Independently of the whitelist/blacklist question, I believe
>
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2019-08-06 10:58:15 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote:
> > > Independently of the whitelist/blacklist question, I believe
> > > pg_checksums should not error out as soon as it encounters a
Hi,
On 2019-08-06 10:58:15 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote:
> > Independently of the whitelist/blacklist question, I believe
> > pg_checksums should not error out as soon as it encounters a weird looking
> > file, but either (i) still checksum it or
Greetings,
* Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote:
> Independently of the whitelist/blacklist question, I believe
> pg_checksums should not error out as soon as it encounters a weird looking
> file, but either (i) still checksum it or (ii) skip it? Or is that to be
> considered a pilot
On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 06:47:48PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> first off, a bit of a meta-question: Did the whitelist approach die
> completely, or are we going to tackle it again for v13 or later?
At this stage, it is burried. Amen.
> This is something I still have in the test suite of my
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:03:54AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Thanks David for the input. I think that I will be able to finish
> wrapping and commit this stuff tomorrow.
And done. I kept the split into two commits for clarity as suggested by
Stephen, as bisect would actually complain only
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:32:29PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> Looks good to me.
Thanks David for the input. I think that I will be able to finish
wrapping and commit this stuff tomorrow.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 11/27/18 8:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>>> Attached are two patches to fix all the mess:
>>> - 0001 is a revert of the whitelist, minus the set of regression tests
>>> checking after corrupted files and empty files.
>>> - 0002 is a fix for all the issues reported on this thread, with tests
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:17:12PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
>> Please see 0002 attached, which moves the call to skipfile() where I
>> think it should go.
>
> Alright, on a quick glance that seems ok.
Thanks.
>> Base backups are impacted as
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 06:27:57PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> >> Believe me or not, but we have spent so much energy on this stuff that I
> >> am ready to give up on the whitelist
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 06:27:57PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
>> Believe me or not, but we have spent so much energy on this stuff that I
>> am ready to give up on the whitelist patch and focus on other business.
>
> I would have hoped that you'd
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 05:45:41PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > This doesn't exactly change my opinion regarding this discussion and I'd
> > rather we revert the "whitelist" patch and use the very minimal patch
> > from here:
> >
> >
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 05:45:41PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> This doesn't exactly change my opinion regarding this discussion and I'd
> rather we revert the "whitelist" patch and use the very minimal patch
> from here:
>
>
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:17:19PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Let's try to not conflate these two issues though, they're quite
> > independent.
>
> This is a poke about a recent issue raised by Michael Banck here:
>
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:17:19PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Let's try to not conflate these two issues though, they're quite
> independent.
This is a poke about a recent issue raised by Michael Banck here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f1543332405.17247.9.ca...@credativ.de
And for
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2018-11-19 21:18:43 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > As has been mentioned elsewhere, there's really a 'right' way to do
> > things and allowing PG to be 'extensible' by simply ignoring random
> > files showing up isn't that- if we want
Hi,
On 2018-11-19 21:18:43 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> As has been mentioned elsewhere, there's really a 'right' way to do
> things and allowing PG to be 'extensible' by simply ignoring random
> files showing up isn't that- if we want PG to be extensible in this way
> then we need to provide a
Greetings Michael,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> I am still a fan of the whitelist approach as there is no actual point
> in restricting what people can do with Postgres in terms of
> extensibility (relying on tablespace paths for storage plugin looks like
> an important thing
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 08:45:29PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Michael, this obviously didn't happen and instead we ended up releasing
> 11.1 with your changes, but I don't feel like this issue is closed and
> I'm a bit disappointed that there hasn't been any further responses or
> discussions
Greetings,
* David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote:
> On 10/30/18 11:59 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> >> So I'm +1 for the Michael's current patch as (I think) we can't
> >> make visible or large changes.
> >>
> >> That said, I
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 04:44:40PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> This sounds like a good argument for having a whitelist approach, but
> is it really a big problem if a user gets warning for files that the
> utility is not able to verify checksums for? I think in some sense
> this message can be
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 7:12 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is a follow-up of the following thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20181012010411.re53cwcistcpi...@alap3.anarazel.de
>
> In a nutshell, b34e84f1 has added TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums, and
> the
On 10/30/18 11:59 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> * Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>>
>> So I'm +1 for the Michael's current patch as (I think) we can't
>> make visible or large changes.
>>
>> That said, I agree with Stephen's concern on the point we could
>> omit
Greetings,
* Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> At Wed, 24 Oct 2018 14:31:37 +0900, Michael Paquier
> wrote in <20181024053137.gl1...@paquier.xyz>
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 08:56:32PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > All of this pie-in-the-sky about what pluggable
Mmm. It took too long time than expected because I was repeatedly
teased by git..
At Wed, 24 Oct 2018 14:31:37 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in <20181024053137.gl1...@paquier.xyz>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 08:56:32PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > All of this pie-in-the-sky about what pluggable
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 08:56:32PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> All of this pie-in-the-sky about what pluggable storage might have is
> just hand-waving, in my opinion, and not worth much more than that. I
> hope (and suspect..) that the actual pluggable storage that's being
> worked on doesn't
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 11:03:30AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > This doesn't change my opinion of the bigger question though, which is
> > to what extent we should be implicitly supporting extensions and
> > whatever else putting
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 11:03:30AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> This doesn't change my opinion of the bigger question though, which is
> to what extent we should be implicitly supporting extensions and
> whatever else putting files into the database and tablespace
> directories.
Well, the whole
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> This is a follow-up of the following thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20181012010411.re53cwcistcpi...@alap3.anarazel.de
Thanks for starting this thread Michael.
> pg_verify_checksums used first a blacklist to decide if
31 matches
Mail list logo
