Hi, first off, a bit of a meta-question: Did the whitelist approach die completely, or are we going to tackle it again for v13 or later?
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:44:33AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:03:54AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Thanks David for the input. I think that I will be able to finish > > wrapping and commit this stuff tomorrow. > > And done. I kept the split into two commits for clarity as suggested by > Stephen, as bisect would actually complain only when using EXEC_BACKEND, > and only for the test suite of pg_verify_checksums. So if I do 'touch $PGDATA/global/123.', current pg_checksums errors out with |pg_checksums: error: invalid segment number 0 in file name |"<<$PGDATA>>/global/123." This is something I still have in the test suite of my pg_checksums fork, cause I never reverted that one from isRelFile() back to skipfile() (so it doesn't fail on the above cause `123.' is not considered a relation file worth checksumming). 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? Thoughts? Michael -- Michael Banck Projektleiter / Senior Berater Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171 Fax: +49 2166 9901-100 Email: michael.ba...@credativ.de credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080 USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209 Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer Unser Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten unterliegt folgenden Bestimmungen: https://www.credativ.de/datenschutz
