From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Date: | 2013-03-04 21:40:26 |
Message-ID: | 513514CA.4000608@vmware.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04.03.2013 22:51, Jim Nasby wrote:
> Additionally, no filesystem I'm aware of checksums the data in the
> filesystem cache. A PG checksum would.
The patch says:
> + * IMPORTANT NOTE -
> + * The checksum is not valid at all times on a data page. We set it before we
> + * flush page/buffer, and implicitly invalidate the checksum when we modify the
> + * page. A heavily accessed buffer might then spend most of its life with an
> + * invalid page checksum, so testing random pages in the buffer pool will tell
> + * you nothing. The reason for this is that the checksum detects otherwise
> + * silent errors caused by the filesystems on which we rely. We do not protect
> + * buffers against uncorrectable memory errors, since these have a very low
> + * measured incidence according to research on large server farms,
> + * http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/sigmetrics09.pdf, discussed 2010/12/22.
It's still true that it does in fact cover pages in the filesystem
cache, but apparently that's not important.
- Heikki
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-03-04 21:42:39 | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-03-04 21:22:01 | Re: Enabling Checksums |