On 14 December 2012 20:15, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 12/14/12 3:00 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: >> >> After some thought, I don't see much value in introducing multiple >> instances of corruption at a time. I would think that the smallest unit >> of corruption would be the hardest to detect, so by introducing many of >> them in one pass makes it easier to detect. > > > That seems reasonable. It would eliminate a lot of issues with reproducing > a fault too. I can just print the impacted block number presuming it will > show up in a log, and make it possible to override picking one at random > with a command line input.
Discussing this makes me realise that we need a more useful response than just "your data is corrupt", so user can respond "yes, I know, I'm trying to save whats left". We'll need a way of expressing some form of corruption tolerance. zero_damaged_pages is just insane, much better if we set corruption_tolerance = N to allow us to skip N corrupt pages before failing, with -1 meaning keep skipping for ever. Settable by superuser only. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
