Re: Page Checksums

From: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Page Checksums
Date: 2011-12-21 16:27:30
Message-ID: 4EF208F2.6030907@yahoo.it
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> I think what I meant was: isn't this going to be useless in a couple
>> of years (if, say, btrfs will be available)? Or it actually gives
>> something that FS will never be able to give?
>
> Yes, it will help you find/address bugs in the filesystem. These things
> are not unheard of...

It sounds to me like a huge job to fix some issues "not unheard of"...

My point is: if we are trying to fix misbehaving drives/controllers
(something that is more common than one might think), that's already
done by ZFS on Solaris and FreeBSD, and will be done in btrfs for linux.

I understand not trusting drives/controllers; but not trusting a
filesystem...

What am I missing? (I'm far from being an expert... I just don't
understand...)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-12-21 16:34:08 Re: Page Checksums
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-12-21 16:24:28 Re: CLOG contention