| From: | Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: quick review |
| Date: | 2006-11-21 21:23:44 |
| Message-ID: | 87vel84hpb.fsf@suzuka.mcnaught.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Now ask your clients what errors they see that could be fixed by a
> repair tool. I think Bruce's formulation is unfortunate, and would
> look better like this: When we find that there is a bug that causes
> data corruption we fix the bug rather than supplying a workaround. Our
> position is that repair tools are mostly a bandaid, and we would
> rather fix the problem.
From what Tom and some others have been saying, it sounds as though
there might be scope for a debugfs(8) sort of tool, to assist in
reconstructing hardware-damaged data. I agree that any kind of
fsck(8)-style automatic de-scragger is probably not what we want.
The abovementioned tool would still require someone fairly
knowledgeble about the on-disk data structures to drive it.
-Doug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-11-21 21:32:38 | Re: quick review |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-11-21 21:18:15 | Re: quick review |