On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > 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?
It would be very computationally expensive to have up-to-date file-level checksums, so I highly doubt it. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
