Re: backup manifests
David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
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
On 3/27/20 3:55 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote: >> I think that what we have seen so far is that all of the SHA-n >> algorithms that PostgreSQL supports are about equally slow, so it >> doesn't really matter which one you pick there from a performance >> point of view. If you're not saying it has to be SHA-512 but you do >> want it to be SHA-256, I don't think that really fixes anything. Using >> CRC-32C does fix the performance issue, but I don't think you like >> that, either. We could default to having no checksums at all, or even >> no manifest at all, but I didn't get the impression that David, at >> least, wanted to go that way, and I don't like it either. It's not the >> world's best feature, but I think it's good enough to justify enabling >> it by default. So I'm not sure we have any options here that will >> satisfy you. > > I do like having a manifest by default. At this point it's pretty clear > that we've just got a fundamental disagreement that more words aren't > going to fix. I'd rather we play it safe and use a sha256 hash and > accept that it's going to be slower by default, and then give users an > option to make it go faster if they want (though I'd much rather that > alternative be a 64bit CRC than a 32bit one). > > Andres seems to agree with you. I'm not sure where David sits on this > specific question. I would prefer a stronger checksum as the default but I would be fine with SHA1, which is a bit faster. I believe the overhead of checksums is being overblown. In my experience the vast majority of users are using compression and running the backup over a network. Once you have done those two things the cost of SHA1 is pretty negligible. As I posted way up-thread we found that just gzip -6 pushed the cost of SHA1 below 3% and that did not include network transfer. Regards, -- -David david@pgmasters.net