Re: Re: TODO list

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: TODO list
Date: 2001-04-06 00:27:25
Message-ID: 200104060027.UAA20160@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > So, for what CRC could be used? To catch disk damages?
> > Disk has its own CRC for this.
>
> Oh, I see. For anyone else who has trouble reading between the lines:
>
> Blocks that have recently been written, but failed to make it down to
> the disk platter intact, should be restorable from the WAL log. So we
> do not need a block-level CRC to guard against partial writes.
>
> A block-level CRC might be useful to guard against long-term data
> lossage, but Vadim thinks that the disk's own CRCs ought to be
> sufficient for that (and I can't say I disagree).
>
> So the only real benefit of a block-level CRC would be to guard against
> bits dropped in transit from the disk surface to someplace else, ie,
> during read or during a "cp -r" type copy of the database to another
> location. That's not a totally negligible risk, but is it worth the
> overhead of updating and checking block CRCs? Seems dubious at best.

Agreed.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Myers 2001-04-06 01:39:15 Re: Re: TODO list
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2001-04-05 23:29:56 Foreign Key & Rule confusion RE: Lost Trigger(s)?