| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Date: | 2008-11-14 15:51:57 |
| Message-ID: | 27210.1226677917@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> But I understand the problem is that you want to continue in the face
> of torn pages, something which is AFAICS ambitious. At least MS-SQL
> just blows up on a torn page, havn't found results for other
> databases...
I don't think it's too "ambitious" to demand that this patch preserve
a behavior we have today.
In fact, if the patch were to break torn-page handling, it would be
100% likely to be a net *decrease* in system reliability. It would add
detection of a situation that is not supposed to happen (ie, storage
system fails to return the same data it stored) at the cost of breaking
one's database when the storage system acts as it's expected and
documented to in a routine power-loss situation.
So no, I don't care that MSSQL is unable to handle this. This patch
must, or it doesn't go in.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-11-14 15:53:10 | Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-11-14 15:50:44 | Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard |