On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 03:12:51AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > You and Andres may be right that trying to verify checksums online > without close interaction with the server is ultimately futile (or at > least overly complex). But I'm not sure those issues (torn pages and > partial reads) are very good arguments, considering basebackup has to > deal with them too. Not sure.
FWIW, I don't think that the backend is right in its way of checking checksums the way it does currently either with warnings and a limited set of failures generated. I raised concerns about that unfortunately after 11 has been GA'ed, which was too late, so this time, for this patch, I prefer raising them before the fact and I'd rather not spread this kind of methodology around the core code more and more. I work a lot with virtualization, and I have seen ESX hanging around I/O requests from time to time depending on the environment used (which is actually wrong, anyway, but a lot of tests happen on a daily basis on the stuff I work on). What's presented on this thread is *never* going to be 100% safe, and would generate false positives which can be confusing for the user. This is not a good sign. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
