On 07/25/2014 11:49 AM, Claudio Freire wrote: >> I agree with much of that. However, I'd question whether we can >> > really seriously expect to rely on file modification times for >> > critical data-integrity operations. I wouldn't like it if somebody >> > ran ntpdate to fix the time while the base backup was running, and it >> > set the time backward, and the next differential backup consequently >> > omitted some blocks that had been modified during the base backup. > I was thinking the same. But that timestamp could be saved on the file > itself, or some other catalog, like a "trusted metadata" implemented > by pg itself, and it could be an LSN range instead of a timestamp > really.
What about requiring checksums to be on instead, and checking the file-level checksums? Hmmm, wait, do we have file-level checksums? Or just page-level? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
