Greetings, On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 15:45 Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:07 PM Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: >> > On 2019-08-06 10:58:15 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > > * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote: >> > > > Independently of the whitelist/blacklist question, I believe >> > > > pg_checksums should not error out as soon as it encounters a weird >> looking >> > > > file, but either (i) still checksum it or (ii) skip it? Or is that >> to be >> > > > considered a pilot error and it's fine for pg_checksums to fold? >> > > >> > > imv, random files that we don't know about are exactly 'pilot error' >> to >> > > be complained about.. This is exactly why the whitelist idea falls >> > > over. >> > >> > I still think this whole assumption is bad, and that you're fixing >> > non-problems, and creating serious usability issues with zero benefits. >> >> I doubt we're going to get to agreement on this, unfortunately. >> > > When agreement cannot be found, perhaps a parameter is in order? > > That is, have the tool complain about such files by default but with a > HINT that it may or may not be a problem, and a switch that makes it stop > complaining? > WFM. Thanks! Stephen >
