| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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: | 2017-01-25 18:37:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSS5ir_cqSHemAnhfOf3Z9SDq-G6jEHC2OBs-2avajV7Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Trying to force those people to use checksums is just masterminding;
> they've made their own decision that it's not worth bothering with.
> When something goes wrong, WE still care about distinguishing hardware
> failure from PostgreSQL failure. Our pride is on the line. But the
> customer often doesn't. The DBA isn't the same person as the
> operating system guy, and the operating system guy isn't going to
> listen to the DBA even if the DBA complains of checksum failures.
We need to invest in corruption detection/verification tools that are
run on an as-needed basis. They are available to users of every other
major database system.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2017-01-25 18:38:10 | Re: COPY as a set returning function |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-25 18:33:24 | Re: PATCH: recursive json_populate_record() |