On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 06:47:48PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > 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?
At this stage, it is burried. Amen. > 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). We could actually fix this one. It is confusing to have pg_checksums generate a report about a segment number which is actually incorrect. > 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? That's actually the distinctions between the black and white lists which would have handled that. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
