| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, 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: | 2017-01-24 03:11:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0xYseAfK=AyUX_EK9eO+svM+R_oWAcs9eoYcuz=jpR6-w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>> I thought that checksums went in in part because we thought that there
>> was some chance that they'd find bugs in Postgres.
>
> Not really. AFAICS the only point is to catch storage-system malfeasance.
>
> It's barely possible that checksumming would help detect cases where
> we'd written data meant for block A into block B, but I don't rate
> that as being significantly more probable than bugs in the checksum
> code itself. Also, if that case did happen, the checksum code might
> "detect" it in some sense, but it would be remarkably unhelpful at
> identifying the actual cause.
Hm, but at least in some cases wouldn't it protect people from further
damage? End user data damage ought to prevented at all costs IMO.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-24 03:23:07 | Re: Faster methods for getting SPI results (460% improvement) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-01-24 02:51:38 | Re: Checksums by default? |