Hi, On July 10, 2019 9:12:18 AM PDT, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:05 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> >wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:42:34AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> > pg_checksums enumerate the files. What if there are files there >from a >> > different tableam? Isn't pg_checksums just going to badly fail >then, >> since >> > it assumes everything is heap? >> > >> > Also, do we allow AMs that don't support checksumming data? Do we >have >> any >> > checks for tables created with such AMs in a system that has >checksums >> > enabled? >> >> Table AMs going through shared buffers and smgr.c, like zedstore, >> share the same page header, meaning that the on-disk file is the same >> as heap, and that checksums are compiled similarly to heap. >> pg_checksums is not going to complain on those ones and would work >> just fine. > > >> Table AMs using their own storage layer (which would most likely use >> their own checksum method normally?) would be ignored by pg_checksums >> if the file names don't match what smgr uses, but it could result in >> failures if they use on-disk file names which match. >> > >That would be fine, if we actually knew. Should we (or have we >already?) >defined a rule that they are not allowed to use the same naming >standard >unless they have the same type of header?
No, don't think we have already. There's the related problem of what to include in base backups, too. Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
