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

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-12-21 16:34:08
Subject: Re: Page Checksums
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2011-12-21 16:24:28
Subject: Re: CLOG contention

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