| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2017-01-26 00:22:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20170126002254.g2g4usns7dxb2wrl@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-01-26 09:19:28 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> >> As it is, there are backup solutions which *do* check the checksum when
> >> backing up PG. This is no longer, thankfully, some hypothetical thing,
> >> but something which really exists and will hopefully keep users from
> >> losing data.
> >
> > Wouldn't that have issues with torn pages?
>
> Why? What do you foresee here? I would think such backup solutions are
> careful enough to ensure correctly the durability of pages so as they
> are not partially written.
That means you have to replay enough WAL to get into a consistent
state...
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-26 00:25:29 | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-26 00:21:40 | Re: safer node casting |