| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, 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 02:04:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQjYcM80S-3_mLuDn77TBT_ptQQoO4W=vpjC8wzcKFEoQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Maybe this is a terminology problem. I'm taking "false positive" to mean
> "checksum reports a failure, but in fact there is no observable data
> corruption". Depending on why the false positive occurred, that might
> help alert you to underlying storage problems, but it isn't helping you
> with respect to being able to access your perfectly valid data.
It was a terminology problem. Thank you for the clarification.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-24 02:07:47 | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-24 02:01:26 | Re: Checksums by default? |