On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:45 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 4/10/18 5:24 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>>
>> I think there's a bug in sendFile(). We do check checksums on all pages
>> that pass this LSN check:
>>
>> /*
>> * Only check pages which have not been modified since the
>> *
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:35:21PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> BTW pg_verify_checksums needs the same fix.
Yes you are right here. Just for the record: what needs to be done is
to check for PageIsNew() in scan_file() before fetching
pg_checksum_page() and after reading an individual block, which
On 4/10/18 5:24 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I think there's a bug in sendFile(). We do check checksums on all pages
that pass this LSN check:
/*
* Only check pages which have not been modified since the
* start of the base backup. Otherwise, they might have been
* written onl
On 04/10/2018 11:24 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think there's a bug in sendFile(). We do check checksums on all pages
> that pass this LSN check:
>
> /*
> * Only check pages which have not been modified since the
> * start of the base backup. Otherwise, they might have bee
Hi,
I think there's a bug in sendFile(). We do check checksums on all pages
that pass this LSN check:
/*
* Only check pages which have not been modified since the
* start of the base backup. Otherwise, they might have been
* written only halfway and the checksum would not be va
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Michael Banck
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:02:27PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Michael Banck >
> > wrote:
> > > Otherwise, I had a quick look and there is no obvious outlier; the
> > > pgdata is 220 MB after the
Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi,
> > Do we have a precedent somewhere for how we do this, or does our test
> > framework already have a way to do it? How are all the actual data
> > directories etc cleaned up?
>
> They (and the base backups) are getting purged on success of the whole
> testsuite. So to
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:02:27PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Michael Banck
> wrote:
> > Otherwise, I had a quick look and there is no obvious outlier; the
> > pgdata is 220 MB after the testrun (195 MB of which is WAL, maybe that
> > could be cut down som
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Michael Banck
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 07:25:11PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > > Michael Banck wrote:
> > >
> > > > However, the pg_basebackup testsuite takes up 800+ MB to run,
> >
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 07:25:11PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Michael Banck wrote:
> >
> > > However, the pg_basebackup testsuite takes up 800+ MB to run,
> >
> > Uh, you're right. This seems a bit over the top. Can we reduce
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Michael Banck wrote:
>
> > However, the pg_basebackup testsuite takes up 800+ MB to run,
>
> Uh, you're right. This seems a bit over the top. Can we reduce that
> without losing coverage? We've gone great lengths to avoid large
> amounts
Michael Banck wrote:
> However, the pg_basebackup testsuite takes up 800+ MB to run,
Uh, you're right. This seems a bit over the top. Can we reduce that
without losing coverage? We've gone great lengths to avoid large
amounts of data in tests elsewhere.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:38:35AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:48 PM, Michael Banck
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:48:08PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I'd bet a good lunch that
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:48 PM, Michael Banck
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:48:08PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'd bet a good lunch that nondefault BLCKSZ would break it, as well,
> > > since the way in which the corruptio
On 4/3/18 4:48 PM, Michael Banck wrote:
Attached is a patch which does that hopefully:
1. creates two user tables, one large enough for at least 6 blocks
(around 360kb), the other just one block.
2. stops the cluster before scribbling over its data and starts it
afterwards.
3. uses the blocks
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:48:08PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd bet a good lunch that nondefault BLCKSZ would break it, as well,
> > since the way in which the corruption is induced is just guessing
> > as to where page boundaries are.
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's scribbling on the source cluster's disk files and assuming that that
>> translates one-for-one to what gets sent to the slave server --- but what
>> if some of the blocks that it modifies on-disk are resident in the
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > Yeah, there's clearly a second problem here.
>
> I think this test script is broken in many ways.
>
> It's scribbling on the source cluster's disk files and assuming that that
> translates one-for-one to what gets sent
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, scribbling on tables as sensitive as pg_class is just asking for
> trouble IMO. I don't see anything in this test, for example, that
> prevents autovacuum from running and causing a PANIC before the test
> can complete.
+1
> Even with AV
Magnus Hagander writes:
> Yeah, there's clearly a second problem here.
I think this test script is broken in many ways.
It's scribbling on the source cluster's disk files and assuming that that
translates one-for-one to what gets sent to the slave server --- but what
if some of the blocks that i
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-04-03 11:52:26 +, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Validate page level checksums in base backups
> >
> > When base backups are run over the replication protocol (for example
> > using pg_basebackup), verify the checksums of all data blo
On 2018-04-03 11:52:26 +, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Validate page level checksums in base backups
>
> When base backups are run over the replication protocol (for example
> using pg_basebackup), verify the checksums of all data blocks if
> checksums are enabled. If checksum failures are encount
22 matches
Mail list logo
