| From: | "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Albe Laurenz" <all(at)adv(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Undetected corruption of table files |
| Date: | 2007-08-27 15:48:19 |
| Message-ID: | 90bce5730708270848p3d8ae18y56325c5a269c0566@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 8/27/07, Jonah H. Harris <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 8/27/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > that and the lack of evidence that they'd actually gain anything
>
> I find it somewhat ironic that PostgreSQL strives to be fairly
> non-corruptable, yet has no way to detect a corrupted page. The only
> reason for not having CRCs is because it will slow down performance...
> which is exactly opposite of conventional PostgreSQL wisdom (no
> performance trade-off for durability).
But how does detecting a corrupted data page gain you any durability?
All it means is that the platform underneath screwed up, and you've
already *lost* durability. What do you do then?
It seems like the same idea as an application trying to detect RAM errors.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-08-27 15:50:06 | Re: Undetected corruption of table files |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-27 15:40:18 | Re: [ANNOUNCE] == PostgreSQL Weekly News - August 26 2007 == |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-27 15:48:55 | Re: [WIP PATCH] Lazily assign xids for toplevel Transactions |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-08-27 15:30:38 | Re: Problem with recent permission changes commits |