On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 03:11:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Even if we don't care about folks running on suspect hardware, having a
> > CRC would make it far more reasonable to recommend full_page_writes=3Doff.
>
> This argument seems ridiculous. Finding o
Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Even if we don't care about folks running on suspect hardware, having a
> CRC would make it far more reasonable to recommend full_page_writes=3Doff.
This argument seems ridiculous. Finding out that you have corrupt data
is no substitute for not having corrup
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 02:34:09PM +0200, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> I have thought some more about it, and tend to agree now:
> Checksums will only detect disk failure, and that's only
> one of the many integrity problems that can happen.
> And one that can be reduced to a reasonable degree with good
>
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Computing a checksum just before writing the block will NOT detect any
> faulty memory or Postgres bug that corrupted the block. You will have
a
> perfectly fine checksum over the corrupted data.
>
> A checksum only detects corruptions that happen between write and
read.
> Mo
On 8/28/2007 4:14 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Not all databases are on enterprise scale storage systems, and
there's also the small possibility of PostgreSQL bugs that could
be detected that way.
Computing a checksum just before writing the block will NOT detect any
faulty memory or Postgres bug t
* Alban Hertroys:
> If you have a "proper" production database server, your memory has
> error checking, and your RAID controller has something of the kind
> as well.
To my knowledge, no readily available controller performs validation
on reads (not even for RAID-1 or RAID-10, where it would be p
At 11:48 PM 8/27/2007, Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 8/27/07, Jonah H. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/27/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > that and the lack of evidence that they'd actually gain anything
>
> I find it somewhat ironic that PostgreSQL strives to be fairly
> non-corrup
Tom Lane wrote:
Would it be an option to have a checksum somewhere in each
data block that is verified upon read?
>
>>> That's been proposed before and rejected before. See the
>>> archives ...
>
> I think
> the prior discussions were around the same time WAL was initially put
> in, a
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 12:08:17PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 8/27/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Indeed. In fact, the most likely implementation of this (refuse to do
> > anything with a page with a bad CRC) would be a net loss from that
> > standpoint, because you couldn't g
On 8/27/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed. In fact, the most likely implementation of this (refuse to do
> anything with a page with a bad CRC) would be a net loss from that
> standpoint, because you couldn't get *any* data out of a page, even if
> only part of it had been zapped.
"Trevor Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8/27/07, Jonah H. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I find it somewhat ironic that PostgreSQL strives to be fairly
>> non-corruptable, yet has no way to detect a corrupted page.
> But how does detecting a corrupted data page gain you any durabili
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 8/27/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> that and the lack of evidence that they'd actually gain anything
>
> I find it somewhat ironic that PostgreSQL strives to be fairly
> non-corruptable, yet has no way to detect a corrupted page. The only
> reason for not h
On 8/27/07, Jonah H. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/27/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > that and the lack of evidence that they'd actually gain anything
>
> I find it somewhat ironic that PostgreSQL strives to be fairly
> non-corruptable, yet has no way to detect a corrupted pa
On 8/27/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that and the lack of evidence that they'd actually gain anything
I find it somewhat ironic that PostgreSQL strives to be fairly
non-corruptable, yet has no way to detect a corrupted page. The only
reason for not having CRCs is because it will slow
"Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Would it be an option to have a checksum somewhere in each
>>> data block that is verified upon read?
>> That's been proposed before and rejected before. See the archives ...
> I searched for "checksum" and couldn't find it. Could
Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would it be an option to have a checksum somewhere in each
>> data block that is verified upon read?
>
> That's been proposed before and rejected before. See the archives ...
I searched for "checksum" and couldn't find it. Could someone
give me a pointer? I'm not talking about
16 matches
Mail list logo
