Re: CRCs (was Re: [GENERAL] Re: Loading optimization)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CRCs (was Re: [GENERAL] Re: Loading optimization)
Date: 2001-01-12 06:16:20
Message-ID: 14976.979280180@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Oh. I thought we'd agreed that a CRC on each stored disk block would
>> be a good idea as well. I take it you didn't do that.

> No, I thought we agreed disk block CRC was way overkill. If the CRC on
> the WAL log checks for errors that are not checked anywhere else, then
> fine, but I thought disk CRC would just duplicate the I/O subsystem/disk
> checks.

A disk-block CRC would detect partially written blocks (ie, power drops
after disk has written M of the N sectors in a block). The disk's own
checks will NOT consider this condition a failure. I'm not convinced
that WAL will reliably detect it either (Vadim?). Certainly WAL will
not help for corruption caused by external agents, away from any updates
that are actually being performed/logged.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message MUMCU, Burak 2001-01-12 06:17:18 I have a problem with postmaster ( Newbie question)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-01-12 05:39:23 Re: CRCs (was Re: [GENERAL] Re: Loading optimization)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Philip Warner 2001-01-12 06:20:22 Re: CRCs (was Re: [GENERAL] Re: Loading optimization)
Previous Message Valter Mazzola 2001-01-12 05:53:56 Pg7.1beta3: connect failed: The DB System is starting up.