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

Re: Block-level CRC checks

From: "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris *EXTERN*" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>,"Joshua Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,"Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Date: 2008-10-01 07:01:08
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>>>> I'd like to submit this for 8.4, but I want to ensure that -hackers
>>>> at large approve of this feature before starting serious coding.
>>> IMHO, this is a functionality that should be enabled by default (as it
>>> is on most other RDBMS).  It would've prevented severe corruption in
>> What other RDMS have it enabled by default?
> Oracle and (I belive) SQL Server >= 2005


Oracle claims that it introduces only 1% to 2% overhead.

Actually I suggested the same feature for 8.3:

It was eventually rejected because the majority felt that it
would be a small benefit (only detects disk corruption and not
software bugs) that would not justify the overhead and the
additional code.

Incidently, Oracle also has a parameter DB_BLOCK_CHECKING
that checks blocks for logical consistency. This is OFF by default,
but Oracle recommends that you activate it if you can live with
the performance impact.

Laurenz Albe

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-10-01 08:13:39
Subject: Re: WAL recovery is broken by FSM patch
Previous:From: Paul SchlieDate: 2008-10-01 06:57:47
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group