| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Detecting corrupted pages earlier |
| Date: | 2003-04-03 19:39:17 |
| Message-ID: | 12399.1049398757@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Andrew Sullivan expressed concern about this, too. The thing could
>> be made a little more failsafe if we made it impossible to set
>> ZERO_DAMAGED_PAGES to true in postgresql.conf, or by any means other
>> than an actual SET command --- whose impact would then be limited to
>> the current session. This is kind of an ugly wart on the GUC mechanism,
>> but I think not difficult to do with an assign_hook (it just has to
>> refuse non-interactive settings).
> Fighting against people who randomly change settings without being
> informed about what they do is pointless.
If you don't want an active defense, how about a passive one --- like
just not listing zero_damaged_pages in postgresql.conf.sample? We
already have several variables deliberately not listed there ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-04-03 21:01:47 | Re: [PERFORM] [HACKERS] OSS database needed for testing |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2003-04-03 19:12:03 | Re: more contrib: log rotator |