Re: pg_walinspect - a new extension to get raw WAL data and WAL stats
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_walinspect - a new extension to get raw WAL data and WAL stats |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobYrTgMEF0SV+yDYyCCh44DAGjZVs7BYGrD8xD3vwNjHA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_walinspect - a new extension to get raw WAL data and WAL stats (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_walinspect - a new extension to get raw WAL data and WAL stats
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 2:31 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote: > > +/* > > + * Verify the authenticity of the given raw WAL record. > > + */ > > +Datum > > +pg_verify_raw_wal_record(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) > > +{ > > > > > > Do we really need this function? I see that whenever the record is > > read, we verify it. So could there be a scenario where any of these > > functions would return an invalid WAL record? > > Yes, this function can be useful. Imagine a case where raw WAL records > are fetched from one server using pg_get_wal_record_info and sent over > the network to another server (for fixing some of the corrupted data > pages or for whatever reasons), using pg_verify_raw_wal_record one can > verify authenticity. As I also said before, and so did Greg, I think giving the user a way to supply WAL records that we will then try to decode is never going to be OK. It's going to be a recipe for security bugs and crash bugs, and there's no compelling use case for it that I can see. I support this patch set only to the extent that it decodes locally generated WAL read directly from the WAL stream. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: