| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
| Date: | 2012-01-03 23:00:15 |
| Message-ID: | A5220FCC-1321-47CF-8C23-2DD40467B761@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 3, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> (2) I'm not sure about doing this in three parts, to skip the
> checksum itself and the hole in the middle of the page. Is this
> because the hole might not have predictable data? Why would that
> matter, as long as it is read back the same?
IMO not checksumming the free space would be a really bad idea. It's entirely possible to have your hardware crapping on your free space, and I'd still want to know that that was happening. Now, it would be interesting if the free space could be checksummed separately, since there's no reason to refuse to read the page if only the free space is screwed up... But given the choice, I'd rather get an error when the free space is "corrupted" and be forced to look into things rather than blissfully ignore corrupted free space only to be hit later with real data loss.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2012-01-03 23:11:37 | Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2012-01-03 22:52:51 | Re: [RFC] grants vs. inherited tables |