On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 01:43:08AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> To be clear, I agree completely that we don't want to be reporting false
> positives or "this might mean corruption!" to users running the tool,
> but I haven't seen a good explaination of why this needs to involve the
> server to avoid that happening. If someone would like to point that out
> to me, I'd be happy to go read about it and try to understand.
The mentions on this thread that the server has all the facility in
place to properly lock a buffer and make sure that a partial read
*never* happens and that we *never* have any kind of false positives,
directly preventing the set of issues we are trying to implement
workarounds for in a frontend tool are rather good arguments in my
opinion (you can grep for BufferDescriptorGetIOLock() on this thread
for example).
--
Michael