Greg Smith wrote: > In general, what I hope people will be able to do is switch over to > their standby server, and then investigate further. I think it's > unlikely that people willing to pay for block checksums will only have > one server. Having some way to nail down if the same block is bad on a > given standby seems like a useful interface we should offer, and it > shouldn't take too much work. Ideally you won't find the same > corruption there. I'd like a way to check the entirety of a standby for > checksum issues, ideally run right after it becomes current. It seems > the most likely way to see corruption on one of those is to replicate a > corrupt block. > > There is no good way to make the poor soul who has no standby server > happy here. You're just choosing between bad alternatives. The first > block error is often just that--the first one, to be joined by others > soon afterward. My experience at how drives fail says the second error > is a lot more likely after you've seen one.
+1 on all of that. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
