On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: > It does seem like this is kind of part and parcel of adding checksums > to blocks. It's arguably kind of silly to add checksums to blocks but > have an commonly produced bitpattern in corruption cases go > undetected.
Getting back to the checksum debate (and this seems like a semi-version of the checksum debate), now that we have forks, could we easily add block checksumming to a fork? IT would mean writing to 2 files but that shouldn't be a problem, because until the checkpoint is done (and thus both writes), the full-page-write in WAL is going to take precedence on recovery. a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
