| From: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Protecting against unexpected zero-pages: proposal |
| Date: | 2010-11-08 15:10:18 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=JtCYr1eKXaCCV-h6H9noXWtfjsLs61uqXpH8q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> It does seem like this is kind of part and parcel of adding checksums
> to blocks. It's arguably kind of silly to add checksums to blocks but
> have an commonly produced bitpattern in corruption cases go
> undetected.
Getting back to the checksum debate (and this seems like a
semi-version of the checksum debate), now that we have forks, could we
easily add block checksumming to a fork? IT would mean writing to 2
files but that shouldn't be a problem, because until the checkpoint is
done (and thus both writes), the full-page-write in WAL is going to
take precedence on recovery.
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2010-11-08 15:27:39 | Re: Should we use make -k on the buildfarm? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-11-08 13:40:10 | Re: B-tree parent pointer and checkpoints |