Re: pg_dump include/exclude data, was: verify checksums / CREATEDATABASE
От | Adrian Klaver |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump include/exclude data, was: verify checksums / CREATEDATABASE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 084004cf-cb61-bee1-98ad-6a9e3e8e74b8@aklaver.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump include/exclude data, was: verify checksums / CREATEDATABASE (Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Aw: Re: pg_dump include/exclude data, was: verify checksums /CREATE DATABASE
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 6/11/19 12:15 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > Dear Adrian, > Sure, but that much depends on what (or rather, where) the > "new cluster" actually is. > > In my case I want to make sure that - before a run of "CREATE > DATABASE new TEMPLATE old" - I can be reasonable sure that > the disk blocks underlying "old" verify against their > checksum. Since the CREATE DATABASE does not verify CRCs I > use a pg_dump into /dev/null to verify checksums while the > cluster is *online*. > > The problem I hope to protect against with this approach: the > CREATE DATABASE might untaint corrupted data from a bad disk > block into a good disk block virtue of doing a file level > copy. > > I hope my reasoning isn't going astray. As I understand it checksums are done on the page level using a hash(for details: https://doxygen.postgresql.org/checksum__impl_8h_source.html). I am not sure how a page could get un-corrupted by virtue of a file copy. > >>> One will be tempted to include options to speed up the >>> process, say: > ... >>> Is my assumption wrong ? >> >> Not sure, though it would seem to me including the above is a relatively >> small incremental cost to the overall dump, assuming a data set of any size >> greater then small. > > Agreed. Good putting of things into perspective. Will do. > > Thanks, > Karsten > -- > GPG 40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6 5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: