Re: Online verification of checksums

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Online verification of checksums
Date: 2019-03-01 23:03:21
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYb4MOdiyda2E8yJm40nhyFarVkRdS7R3enTbNuwTtigw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 10:37 AM Michael Banck
<michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> wrote:
> I have added a retry for this as well now, without a pg_sleep() as well.
> This catches around 80% of the half-reads, but a few slip through. At
> that point we bail out with exit(1), and the user can try again, which I
> think is fine?

Maybe I'm confused here, but catching 80% of torn pages doesn't sound
robust at all.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-03-01 23:05:05 Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Previous Message Li, Zheng 2019-03-01 22:58:42 Re: NOT IN subquery optimization