Re: backup manifests
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Try to avoid compiler warnings in optimized builds.
- 05021a2c0cd2 13.0 landed
-
Fix option related issues in pg_verifybackup.
- 0a89e93bfaa6 13.0 landed
-
Add index term for backup manifest in documentation.
- 4db819ba4039 13.0 landed
-
Code review for backup manifest.
- a2ac73e7be7a 13.0 landed
-
Document the backup manifest file format.
- 149f2ae88ab0 13.0 landed
-
Fix typo in pg_validatebackup documentation.
- c4f82a779d26 13.0 landed
-
Exclude backup_manifest file that existed in database, from BASE_BACKUP.
- 1ec50a81ec0a 13.0 landed
-
Msys2 tweaks for pg_validatebackup corruption test
- c3e4cbaab936 13.0 landed
-
Fix resource management bug with replication=database.
- 3e0d80fd8d3d 13.0 cited
-
Be more careful about time_t vs. pg_time_t in basebackup.c.
- db1531cae009 13.0 cited
-
pg_validatebackup: Fix 'make clean' to remove tmp_check.
- 9f8f881caa0f 13.0 landed
-
pg_validatebackup: Also use perl2host in TAP tests.
- 460314db08e8 13.0 landed
-
Generate backup manifests for base backups, and validate them.
- 0d8c9c1210c4 13.0 landed
-
Add checksum helper functions.
- c12e43a2e0d4 13.0 landed
-
pg_waldump: Add a --quiet option.
- ac44367efbef 13.0 landed
-
Catversion bump for b9b408c48724
- afb5465e0cfc 13.0 cited
-
pg_basebackup: Refactor code for reading COPY and tar data.
- 431ba7bebf13 13.0 landed
-
Use a ResourceOwner to track buffer pins in all cases.
- 3cb646264e8c 12.0 cited
-
Use ARMv8 CRC instructions where available.
- f044d71e331d 11.0 cited
-
Logical replication support for initial data copy
- 7c4f52409a8c 10.0 cited
-
Use Intel SSE 4.2 CRC instructions where available.
- 3dc2d62d0486 9.5.0 cited
-
Switch to CRC-32C in WAL and other places.
- 5028f22f6eb0 9.5.0 cited
-
Remove support for 64-bit CRC.
- 404bc51cde9d 9.5.0 cited
-
Change CRCs in WAL records from 64bit to 32bit for performance reasons.
- 21fda22ec46d 8.1.0 cited
Hi,
On 2020-03-26 14:02:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:34 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > Why was crc32c
> > picked for that purpose?
>
> Because it was discovered that 64-bit CRC was too slow, per commit
> 21fda22ec46deb7734f793ef4d7fa6c226b4c78e.
Well, a 32bit crc, not crc32c. IIRC it was the ethernet polynomial (+
bug). We switched to crc32c at some point because there are hardware
implementations:
commit 5028f22f6eb0579890689655285a4778b4ffc460
Author: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi>
Date: 2014-11-04 11:35:15 +0200
Switch to CRC-32C in WAL and other places.
> Like, suppose we change the default from CRC-32C to SHA-something. On
> the upside, the error detection rate will increase from 99.9999999+%
> to something much closer to 100%.
FWIW, I don't buy the relevancy of 99.9999999+% at all. That's assuming
a single bit error (at relevant lengths, before that it's single burst
errors of a greater length), which isn't that relevant for our purposes.
That's not to say that I don't think a CRC check can provide value. It
does provide a high likelihood of detecting enough errors, including
coding errors in how data is restored (not unimportant), that you're
likely not find out aobut a problem soon.
> On the downside,
> backups will get as much as 40-50% slower for some users. I hope we
> can agree that both detecting errors and taking backups quickly are
> important. However, it is hard for me to imagine that the typical user
> would want to pay even a 5-10% performance penalty when taking a
> backup in order to improve an error detection feature which they may
> not even use and which already has less than a one-in-a-billion chance
> of going wrong.
FWIW, that seems far too large a slowdown to default to for me. Most
people aren't going to be able to figure out that it's the checksum
parameter that causes this slowdown, there just going to feel the pain
of the backup being much slower than their hardware.
A few hundred megabytes of streaming reads/writes really doesn't take a
beefy server these days. Medium sized VMs + a bit larger network block
devices at all the common cloud providers have considerably higher
bandwidth. Even a raid5x of 4 spinning disks can deliver > 500MB/s.
And plenty of even the smaller instances at many providers have >
5gbit/s network. At the upper end it's way more than that.
Greetings,
Andres Freund