On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:07 PM Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> Greetings, > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > On 2019-08-06 10:58:15 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > > imv, random files that we don't know about are exactly 'pilot error' to > > > be complained about.. This is exactly why the whitelist idea falls > > > over. > > > > I still think this whole assumption is bad, and that you're fixing > > non-problems, and creating serious usability issues with zero benefits. > > I doubt we're going to get to agreement on this, unfortunately. > When agreement cannot be found, perhaps a parameter is in order? That is, have the tool complain about such files by default but with a HINT that it may or may not be a problem, and a switch that makes it stop complaining? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
