Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Block-level CRC checks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Paul Schlie <schlie(at)comcast(dot)net>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Date: 2008-10-01 20:06:16
Message-ID: 28097.1222891576@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Paul Schlie <schlie(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
> - however regardless, if some form of error detection ends up being
> implemented, it might be nice to actually log corrupted blocks of data
> along with their previously computed checksums for subsequent analysis
> in an effort to ascertain if there's an opportunity to improve its
> implementation based on this more concrete real-world information.

This feature is getting overdesigned, I think.  It's already the case
that we log an error complaining that thus-and-such a page is corrupt.
Once PG has decided that it won't have anything to do with the page at
all --- it can't load it into shared buffers, so it won't write it
either.  So the user can go inspect the page at leisure with whatever
tools seem handy.  I don't see a need for more verbose logging.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2008-10-01 20:10:35
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-10-01 19:53:11
Subject: Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group