Re: Enabling Checksums
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1355797272.24766.187.camel@sussancws0025 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Enabling Checksums (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Enabling Checksums
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 19:14 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > We'll need a way of expressing some form of corruption tolerance. > zero_damaged_pages is just insane, The main problem I see with zero_damaged_pages is that it could potentially write out the zero page, thereby really losing your data if it wasn't already lost. (Of course, we document that you should have a backup first, but it's still dangerous). I assume that this is the same problem you are talking about. I suppose we could have a new ReadBufferMaybe function that would only be used by a sequential scan; and then just skip over the page if it's corrupt, depending on a GUC. That would at least allow sequential scans to (partially) work, which might be good enough for some data recovery situations. If a catalog index is corrupted, that could just be rebuilt. Haven't thought about the details, though. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: