Re: Checksums by default?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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>, 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: 2017-01-26 00:19:28
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQYGnr_d-QJgCBr_7cxediv8zk29pBC5az=PSz1h+=7kQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> As it is, there are backup solutions which *do* check the checksum when
>> backing up PG. This is no longer, thankfully, some hypothetical thing,
>> but something which really exists and will hopefully keep users from
>> losing data.
>
> Wouldn't that have issues with torn pages?

Why? What do you foresee here? I would think such backup solutions are
careful enough to ensure correctly the durability of pages so as they
are not partially written.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-01-26 00:21:40 Re: safer node casting
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-01-26 00:16:34 Re: safer node casting