| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Albe Laurenz <all(at)adv(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Undetected corruption of table files |
| Date: | 2007-08-31 19:11:29 |
| Message-ID: | 291.1188587489@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> Even if we don't care about folks running on suspect hardware, having a
> CRC would make it far more reasonable to recommend full_page_writes=3Doff.
This argument seems ridiculous. Finding out that you have corrupt data
is no substitute for not having corrupt data.
> BTW, a method that would buy additional protection would be to compute
> the CRC for a page every time you modify it in such a way that generates
> a WAL record, and record that CRC with the WAL record. That would
> protect from corruption that happened anytime after the page was
> modified, instead of just when smgr went to write it out. How useful
> that is I don't know...
Two words: hint bits.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-08-31 19:51:53 | Re: auditing in postgresql |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2007-08-31 18:47:00 | Re: auditing in postgresql |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Decibel! | 2007-08-31 19:12:03 | Re: Password requirement in windows installer |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-08-31 18:55:47 | Re: enum types and binary queries |