Heikki, > Perhaps we should just wait a few years? If we suspect that this becomes > obsolete in a few years, it's probably better to just wait, than add a > feature we'll have to keep maintaining. Assuming it gets committed > today, it's going to take a year or two for 9.3 to get released and all > the bugs ironed out, anyway.
You are far more optimistic about FS development than I am: * Windows and OSX are unlikely to ever have usable FS checksums * BTRFS may be years away from being production-quality for DB server, and (given the current dev priorities) may *never* be suitable for DB servers. * For various reasons, many users may stay with other filesystems, even on Linux. * All filesystems have bugs, and the FS may be itself causing the corruption. * FS checksums may not catch underlying driver bugs (i.e. better to have two checks than one if you KNOW something is wrong) We have people who could use PostgreSQL-level checksums *now* because they are having data corruption issues *now* and need a tool to help determine what layer the corruption is occurring at. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
