| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Date: | 2013-03-04 23:20:30 |
| Message-ID: | 51352C3E.5070609@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/05/2013 04:48 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> We would still calculate the checksum and print the warning; and then
> pass it through the rest of the header checks. If the header checks
> pass, then it proceeds. If the header checks fail, and if
> zero_damaged_pages is off, then it would still generate an error (as
> today).
>
> So: ignore_checksum_failures = on|off ?
That seems reasonable to me. It would be important to document clearly
in postgresql.conf and on the docs for the option that enabling this
option can launder data corruption, so that blocks that we suspected
were damaged are marked clean on rewrite. So long as that's clearly
documented I'm personally quite comfortable with your suggestion, since
my focus is just making sure I can get a DB back to a fully operational
state as quickly as possible when that's necessary.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2013-03-04 23:34:13 | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2013-03-04 23:12:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Floating point error |