Re: Online verification of checksums
От | Michael Banck |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Online verification of checksums |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1553893710.4884.62.camel@credativ.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Online verification of checksums (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Online verification of checksums
(Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Am Freitag, den 29.03.2019, 16:52 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:30 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:19 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 01:11:40PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > >On 2019-03-28 21:09:22 +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > > >> I agree that the current patch might have some corner-cases where it > > > > >> does not guarantee 100% accuracy in online mode, but I hope the current > > > > >> version at least has no more false negatives. > > > > > > > > > >False positives are *bad*. We shouldn't integrate code that has them. > > > > > > > > Yeah, I agree. I'm a bit puzzled by the reluctance to make the online mode > > > > communicate with the server, which would presumably address these issues. > > > > Can someone explain why not to do that? > > > > > > I agree that this effort seems better spent on fixing those issues there > > > (of which many are the same), and then re-use that. > > > > This really seems like it depends on which of the options we're talking > > about.. Connecting to the server and asking what the current insert > > point is, so we can check that the LSN isn't completely insane, seems > > reasonable, but at least one option being discussed was to have > > pg_basebackup actually *lock the page* (even if just for I/O..) and then > > re-read it, and having an external tool doing that instead of the > > backend seems like a whole different level to me. That would involve > > having an SQL function for "lock this page against I/O" and then another > > for "unlock this page", wouldn't it? > > Right. > > But what if we just added a flag to the BASE_BACKUP command in the > replication protocol that said "meh, I really just want to verify the > checksums, so please send the data to devnull and only feed me regular > status updates on this connection"? I don't know whether BASE_BACKUP is the best interface for that (at least right now) - backend/replication/basebackup.c's sendFile() gets only an absolute filename to send, which is not adequate for more in- depth server-based things like locking a particular page in a particular relation of some particular tablespace. ISTM that the fact that we had to teach it about different segment files for checksum verification by splitting up the filename at "." implies that it is not the correct level of abstraction (but maybe it could get schooled some more about Postgres internals, e.g. by passing it a RefFileNode struct and not a filename). Michael -- Michael Banck Projektleiter / Senior Berater Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171 Fax: +49 2166 9901-100 Email: michael.banck@credativ.de credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080 USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209 Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer Unser Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten unterliegt folgenden Bestimmungen: https://www.credativ.de/datenschutz
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Предыдущее
От: Tomas VondraДата:
Сообщение: Re: explain plans with information about (modified) gucs