On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Trying to force those people to use checksums is just masterminding; >> they've made their own decision that it's not worth bothering with. >> When something goes wrong, WE still care about distinguishing hardware >> failure from PostgreSQL failure. Our pride is on the line. But the >> customer often doesn't. The DBA isn't the same person as the >> operating system guy, and the operating system guy isn't going to >> listen to the DBA even if the DBA complains of checksum failures. > > We need to invest in corruption detection/verification tools that are > run on an as-needed basis. They are available to users of every other > major database system.
+1, but the trick is (a) figuring out exactly what to develop and (b) finding the time to develop it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
