On tis, 2009-12-01 at 17:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > I also like the idea that we don't need to CRC check the line pointers > > because any corruption there is going to appear immediately. However, > > the bad news is that we wouldn't find the corruption until we try to > > access bad data and might crash. > > That sounds exactly like the corruption detection system we have now. > If you think that behavior is acceptable, we can skip this whole > discussion.
I think one of the motivations for this CRC business was to detect corruption in the user data. As you say, we already handle corruption in the metadata. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
