Hi, On 2020-03-29 20:47:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Maybe that was the wrong idea, but I thought people would like the > idea of running cheaper checks first. I wasn't worried about > concurrent modification of the backup because then you're super-hosed > no matter what.
I do like that approach. To be clear: I'm suggesting the additional crosscheck not because I'm not concerned with concurrent modifications, but because I've seen filesystem per-inode metadata and the actual data / extent-tree differ. Leading to EOF reported while reading at a different place than what the size via stat() would indicate. Greetings, Andres Freund
