On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 01:43:08AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > To be clear, I agree completely that we don't want to be reporting false > positives or "this might mean corruption!" to users running the tool, > but I haven't seen a good explaination of why this needs to involve the > server to avoid that happening. If someone would like to point that out > to me, I'd be happy to go read about it and try to understand.
The mentions on this thread that the server has all the facility in place to properly lock a buffer and make sure that a partial read *never* happens and that we *never* have any kind of false positives, directly preventing the set of issues we are trying to implement workarounds for in a frontend tool are rather good arguments in my opinion (you can grep for BufferDescriptorGetIOLock() on this thread for example). -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
