From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 02:37:59 |
Message-ID: | 4f410482-7b2a-05ed-681e-bd27bf24cc63@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/23/17 8:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Hrm, I thought the checksum would be valid if the buffer is marked clean?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-24 02:40:53 | Re: Checksums by default? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-24 02:24:22 | Re: Checksums by default? |