Re: backup manifests

Tels <nospam-pg-abuse@bloodgate.com>

From: Tels <nospam-pg-abuse@bloodgate.com>
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Date: 2019-11-25T16:24:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Try to avoid compiler warnings in optimized builds.

  2. Fix option related issues in pg_verifybackup.

  3. Add index term for backup manifest in documentation.

  4. Code review for backup manifest.

  5. Document the backup manifest file format.

  6. Fix typo in pg_validatebackup documentation.

  7. Exclude backup_manifest file that existed in database, from BASE_BACKUP.

  8. Msys2 tweaks for pg_validatebackup corruption test

  9. Fix resource management bug with replication=database.

  10. Be more careful about time_t vs. pg_time_t in basebackup.c.

  11. pg_validatebackup: Fix 'make clean' to remove tmp_check.

  12. pg_validatebackup: Also use perl2host in TAP tests.

  13. Generate backup manifests for base backups, and validate them.

  14. Add checksum helper functions.

  15. pg_waldump: Add a --quiet option.

  16. Catversion bump for b9b408c48724

  17. pg_basebackup: Refactor code for reading COPY and tar data.

  18. Use a ResourceOwner to track buffer pins in all cases.

  19. Use ARMv8 CRC instructions where available.

  20. Logical replication support for initial data copy

  21. Use Intel SSE 4.2 CRC instructions where available.

  22. Switch to CRC-32C in WAL and other places.

  23. Remove support for 64-bit CRC.

  24. Change CRCs in WAL records from 64bit to 32bit for performance reasons.

On 2019-11-24 15:38, David Steele wrote:
> On 11/23/19 4:34 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> 
>> On 11/23/19 3:13 AM, Tels wrote:
>>> 
>>> Without the strong hashes it would be pointless to sign the manifest.
>>> 
>> 
>> I guess I must have missed where we are planning to add a 
>> cryptographic
>> signature.
> 
> I don't think we were planning to, but the user could do so if they 
> wished.

That was what I meant.

Best regards,

Tels