Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, crazy idea #3. What if we had a per-page counter of the number of
> > hint bits set --- that way, we would only consider a CRC check failure
> > to be corruption if the count matched the hint bit count on the page.
> Seems like rather a large hole in the ability to detect corruption.
> In particular, this again assumes that you can accurately locate all
> the hint bits in a page whose condition is questionable. Pick up the
> wrong bits, you'll come to the wrong conclusion --- and the default
> behavior you propose here is the wrong result.
I was assuming any update of hint bits would update the per-page counter
so it would always be accurate. However, I seem to remember we don't
lock the page when updating hint bits, so that wouldn't work.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2009-12-01 22:13:20|
|Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2009-12-01 22:05:25|
|Subject: Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4?|