Greetings, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2019-03-26 21:01:27 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I'm also not convinced that these changes to pg_basebackup will be free > > of issues that may impact users in a negative way, making me concerned > > that we're going to end up doing more harm than good with such a change > > being back-patched. Simply comparing the skipped LSNs to the > > end-of-backup LSN seems much less invasive when it comes to this core > > code, and certainly increases the chances quite a bit that we'll detect > > an issue with corruption in the LSN. > > Yea, in the other thread we'd discussed that that might be the correct > course for backpatch, at least initially. But I think the insert/replay > LSN would be the correct LSN to compare to in the basebackup.c case?
Yes, it seems like that could be done in the basebackup case and would avoid the need to track the skipped LSNs, since you could just look up the insert/replay LSN at the time and do the comparison right away. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
