From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Paul Schlie <schlie(at)comcast(dot)net> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Date: | 2008-10-01 20:06:16 |
Message-ID: | 28097.1222891576@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Paul Schlie <schlie(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
> - however regardless, if some form of error detection ends up being
> implemented, it might be nice to actually log corrupted blocks of data
> along with their previously computed checksums for subsequent analysis
> in an effort to ascertain if there's an opportunity to improve its
> implementation based on this more concrete real-world information.
This feature is getting overdesigned, I think. It's already the case
that we log an error complaining that thus-and-such a page is corrupt.
Once PG has decided that it won't have anything to do with the page at
all --- it can't load it into shared buffers, so it won't write it
either. So the user can go inspect the page at leisure with whatever
tools seem handy. I don't see a need for more verbose logging.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-10-01 20:10:35 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-01 19:53:11 | Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch |