From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CRCs (was Re: [GENERAL] Re: Loading optimization) |
Date: | 2001-01-12 06:16:20 |
Message-ID: | 14976.979280180@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Oh. I thought we'd agreed that a CRC on each stored disk block would
>> be a good idea as well. I take it you didn't do that.
> No, I thought we agreed disk block CRC was way overkill. If the CRC on
> the WAL log checks for errors that are not checked anywhere else, then
> fine, but I thought disk CRC would just duplicate the I/O subsystem/disk
> checks.
A disk-block CRC would detect partially written blocks (ie, power drops
after disk has written M of the N sectors in a block). The disk's own
checks will NOT consider this condition a failure. I'm not convinced
that WAL will reliably detect it either (Vadim?). Certainly WAL will
not help for corruption caused by external agents, away from any updates
that are actually being performed/logged.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | MUMCU, Burak | 2001-01-12 06:17:18 | I have a problem with postmaster ( Newbie question) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-01-12 05:39:23 | Re: CRCs (was Re: [GENERAL] Re: Loading optimization) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Philip Warner | 2001-01-12 06:20:22 | Re: CRCs (was Re: [GENERAL] Re: Loading optimization) |
Previous Message | Valter Mazzola | 2001-01-12 05:53:56 | Pg7.1beta3: connect failed: The DB System is starting up. |