| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Date: | 2017-01-25 18:53:02 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYDCp7fvEMhMGXqV+-Z1c7QCqB_y2pxPD3sYzrZrRKoBA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Trying to force those people to use checksums is just masterminding;
>> they've made their own decision that it's not worth bothering with.
>> When something goes wrong, WE still care about distinguishing hardware
>> failure from PostgreSQL failure. Our pride is on the line. But the
>> customer often doesn't. The DBA isn't the same person as the
>> operating system guy, and the operating system guy isn't going to
>> listen to the DBA even if the DBA complains of checksum failures.
>
> We need to invest in corruption detection/verification tools that are
> run on an as-needed basis. They are available to users of every other
> major database system.
+1, but the trick is (a) figuring out exactly what to develop and (b)
finding the time to develop it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-25 19:08:34 | Re: pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2017-01-25 18:38:10 | Re: COPY as a set returning function |