On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 04:43:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 04:11:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Thanks. The patch for v13 cannot use a macro, but one of the versions
>> of upthread would do just fine.
For the note, I have posted a set of patches to address a
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 04:11:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Thanks. The patch for v13 cannot use a macro, but one of the versions
> of upthread would do just fine. I have been wondering about using the
> new CheckBuffer() for the purpose of the retry to make it
> concurrent-safe, but by lo
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:56:23PM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> In case you need a second opinion on the remaining patch, it still looks
> good to me.
Thanks. The patch for v13 cannot use a macro, but one of the versions
of upthread would do just fine. I have been wondering about using
On 26.10.2020 04:13, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 08:00:08AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Yeah, we could try to make the logic a bit more complicated like
that. However, for any code path relying on a page read without any
locking insurance, we cannot really have a lot of tru
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 08:00:08AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, we could try to make the logic a bit more complicated like
> that. However, for any code path relying on a page read without any
> locking insurance, we cannot really have a lot of trust in any of the
> fields assigned to the
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:11:45PM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> Most of such pages are valid and already in memory, because they were
> changed just recently, so no need for pg_prewarm here. If such LSN appeared
> because of a data corruption, page verification from inside ReadBuffer()
> w
On 22.10.2020 04:25, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:47:03AM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
We can also read such pages via shared buffers to be 100% sure.
Yeah, but this has its limits as well. One can use
ignore_checksum_failure, but this can actually be very dangerous
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:27:34PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I'm a bit worried about this approach, as if I understand correctly
> this can lead to false positive reports. I've certainly seen systems
> with IO stalled for more than 500ms, so while this is not frequent
> this could still happe
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 9:25 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:47:03AM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> > Thank you. I always forget about this. Do we have any checklist for such
> > changes, that patch authors and reviewers can use?
>
> Not really. That's more a habit
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:47:03AM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> Thank you. I always forget about this. Do we have any checklist for such
> changes, that patch authors and reviewers can use?
Not really. That's more a habit than anything else where any
non-static routine that we publish co
On 20.10.2020 09:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 06:02:52PM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
In the current patch, PageIsVerifed called from pgbasebackup simply doesn't
Should we change this too? I don't see any difference.
I considered that, but now that does not seem wor
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 06:02:52PM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> In the current patch, PageIsVerifed called from pgbasebackup simply doesn't
> Should we change this too? I don't see any difference.
I considered that, but now that does not seem worth bothering here.
> Done.
Thanks for the
On 07.10.2020 11:18, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 08:53:27AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
Oh right, I've fixed up the commit message in the attached V4.
Not much a fan of what's proposed here, for a couple of reasons:
- If the page is not new, we should check if the header is s
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 08:53:27AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Oh right, I've fixed up the commit message in the attached V4.
Not much a fan of what's proposed here, for a couple of reasons:
- If the page is not new, we should check if the header is sane or
not.
- It may be better to actually co
17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael Banck
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:09:36 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fix checksum verification in base backups for zero page
headers
We currently do not checksum a page if it is considered new by PageIsNew().
However, this means that if the whole page header is zero, PageIsNew
On 22.09.2020 17:30, Michael Banck wrote:
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 22.09.2020, 16:26 +0200 schrieb Michael Banck:
Am Mittwoch, den 02.09.2020, 16:50 +0300 schrieb Anastasia Lubennikova:
I've looked through the previous discussion. As far as I got it, most of
the controversy was about online chec
dbach 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
From a6706ec63709137881d415a8acf98c390a39ee56
566209
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
From 317df17289d4fd057ffdb4410f9effa8c7a2b975 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael Banck
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 202
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 04:50:14PM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> I've looked through the previous discussion. As far as I got it, most of the
> controversy was about online checksums improvements.
This patch is waiting on author for two weeks now. Michael, could you
reply to the points ra
On 01.09.2020 13:22, Michael Banck wrote:
Hi,
as a continuation of [1], I've split-off the zero page header case from
the last patch, as this one seems less contentious.
Michael
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/28/2308/
I've looked through the previous discussion. As far as I got it, mo
iv.de/datenschutz
From 8784d27ff258a6ff1d80f18b22e2b275a3944991 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael Banck
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 12:14:16 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fix checksum verification in base backups for zero page
headers
We currently do not checksum a page if it is considered new by Page
21 matches
Mail list logo
