| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Date: | 2009-12-02 18:44:25 |
| Message-ID: | 1259779465.19446.11.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tis, 2009-12-01 at 17:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I also like the idea that we don't need to CRC check the line pointers
> > because any corruption there is going to appear immediately. However,
> > the bad news is that we wouldn't find the corruption until we try to
> > access bad data and might crash.
>
> That sounds exactly like the corruption detection system we have now.
> If you think that behavior is acceptable, we can skip this whole
> discussion.
I think one of the motivations for this CRC business was to detect
corruption in the user data. As you say, we already handle corruption
in the metadata.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-12-02 18:45:13 | Re: YAML Was: CommitFest status/management |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-12-02 18:40:27 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |