Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups

On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 06:47:48PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> first off, a bit of a meta-question: Did the whitelist approach die
> completely, or are we going to tackle it again for v13 or later?

At this stage, it is burried.  Amen.

> This is something I still have in the test suite of my pg_checksums
> fork, cause I never reverted that one from isRelFile() back to
> skipfile() (so it doesn't fail on the above cause `123.' is not
> considered a relation file worth checksumming).

We could actually fix this one.  It is confusing to have pg_checksums
generate a report about a segment number which is actually incorrect.

> Independently of the whitelist/blacklist question, I believe
> pg_checksums should not error out as soon as it encounters a weird looking
> file, but either (i) still checksum it or (ii) skip it? Or is that to be
> considered a pilot error and it's fine for pg_checksums to fold?

That's actually the distinctions between the black and white lists
which would have handled that.
--
Michael