| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Date: | 2017-01-24 02:24:22 |
| Message-ID: | 18368.1485224662@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 1/23/17 7:47 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> It might be interesting to consider checking them in 'clean' pages in
>> shared_buffers in a background process, as that, presumably, *would*
>> detect shared buffers corruption.
> Hmm... that would be interesting. Assuming the necessary functions are
> exposed it presumably wouldn't be difficult to do that in an extension,
> as a bgworker.
But we don't maintain the checksum of a page while it sits in shared
buffers. Trying to do so would break, eg, concurrent hint-bit updates.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-24 02:37:59 | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-24 02:17:18 | Re: Checksums by default? |