| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup |
| Date: | 2014-07-25 22:38:07 |
| Message-ID: | 53D2DC4F.4040303@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2014-07-25 22:40:40 | Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-25 22:32:48 | Re: Fwd: Re: Compile fails on AIX 6.1 |