On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-01-26 09:19:28 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> >> As it is, there are backup solutions which *do* check the checksum when >> >> backing up PG. This is no longer, thankfully, some hypothetical thing, >> >> but something which really exists and will hopefully keep users from >> >> losing data. >> > >> > Wouldn't that have issues with torn pages? >> >> Why? What do you foresee here? I would think such backup solutions are >> careful enough to ensure correctly the durability of pages so as they >> are not partially written. > > That means you have to replay enough WAL to get into a consistent > state...
Ah, OK I got the point. Yes that would be a problem to check this field on raw backups except if the page size matches the kernel's one at 4k. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers