Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 17496.1485223286@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes: > Perhaps I've missed the point entirely, but, I have to ask: How could > there ever be false positives? Bugs. For example, checksum is computed while somebody else is setting a hint bit in the page, so that what is written out is completely valid except that the checksum doesn't match. (I realize that that specific scenario should be impossible given our implementation, but I hope you aren't going to claim that bugs in the checksum code are impossible.) 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. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: