| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 02:17:18 |
| Message-ID: | 6e06c003-2234-71b0-125c-62e4ef4c6945@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
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 | Tom Lane | 2017-01-24 02:24:22 | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-24 02:12:40 | COPY IN/BOTH vs. extended query mode |