On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:07 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (andres@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2019-08-06 10:58:15 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Michael Banck (michael.banck@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 error and it's fine for pg_checksums to fold? > > > > imv, random files that we don't know about are exactly 'pilot error' to > > be complained about.. This is exactly why the whitelist idea falls > > over. > > I still think this whole assumption is bad, and that you're fixing > non-problems, and creating serious usability issues with zero benefits.
I doubt we're going to get to agreement on this, unfortunately.
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 problem, and a switch that makes it stop complaining?