Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaUbPvKO66pBsThrijtGcVi5uo6OcfXQPFUyGs8vdmijA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Still not safe. Checksum collisions do happen, especially in big data sets.
>
> If you use an appropriate algorithm for appropriate amounts of data
> that's not a relevant concern. You can easily do different checksums for
> every 1GB segment of data. If you do it right the likelihood of
> conflicts doing that is so low it doesn't matter at all.

True, but if you use LSNs the likelihood is 0.  Comparing the LSN is
also most likely a heck of a lot faster than checksumming the entire
page.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations