Re: Online verification of checksums

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Magnus Hagander
Тема Re: Online verification of checksums
Дата
Msg-id CABUevEw1afuDpqRt689uDHCDxXiXUBDH+fVXC1pJ=yY4yPxEVw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Online verification of checksums  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: Online verification of checksums
Список pgsql-hackers


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:
>Hi,
>
>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.


FWIW I've initially argued against that, believing that we can address
those issues in some other way, and I'd love if that was possible. But
considering we're still trying to make that work reliably I think the
reasonable conclusion is that Andres was right communicating with the
server is necessary.

Of course, I definitely appreciate people are working on this, otherwise
we wouldn't be having this discussion ...

+1.
 
--

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GSoC 2019] Proposal: Develop Performance Farm Database and Website
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation