Re: Enabling Checksums

Greg Smith wrote:

> In general, what I hope people will be able to do is switch over to
> their standby server, and then investigate further. I think it's
> unlikely that people willing to pay for block checksums will only have
> one server. Having some way to nail down if the same block is bad on a
> given standby seems like a useful interface we should offer, and it
> shouldn't take too much work. Ideally you won't find the same
> corruption there. I'd like a way to check the entirety of a standby for
> checksum issues, ideally run right after it becomes current. It seems
> the most likely way to see corruption on one of those is to replicate a
> corrupt block.
>
> There is no good way to make the poor soul who has no standby server
> happy here. You're just choosing between bad alternatives. The first
> block error is often just that--the first one, to be joined by others
> soon afterward. My experience at how drives fail says the second error
> is a lot more likely after you've seen one.

+1 on all of that.

-Kevin