Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification inbase backups
| От | David Steele |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification inbase backups |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | c7fb5512-05a0-6b5f-87b1-80975b4e3417@pgmasters.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verificationin base backups (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Ответы |
Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verificationin base backups
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/27/18 8:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >>> Attached are two patches to fix all the mess: >>> - 0001 is a revert of the whitelist, minus the set of regression tests >>> checking after corrupted files and empty files. >>> - 0002 is a fix for all the issues reported on this thread, with tests >>> added (including the tablespace test from Michael Banck): >>> -- Base backups gain EXEC_BACKEND files in their warning filters. >>> -- pg_verify_checksums gains the same files. >>> -- temporary files are filtered out. >>> -- pg_verify_checksums performs filtering checks only on regular files, >>> not on paths. >>> >>> 0001 and 0002 need to be merged as 0001 would cause the buildfarm to >>> turn red on Windows if applied alone. Can you know see my point? >> >> Yes, I think they could be merged to address that, though I'm not sure >> that it's necessairly a huge deal either, if they're going to be pushed >> together. > > This avoids noise failures when bisecting a regression, which matters in > some cases. To keep the history cleaner perhaps you are right and it > would be cleaner to split into two commits. > > Let's wait a bit and see if others have extra opinions to offer. Looks good to me. -- -David david@pgmasters.net
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: