Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Дата
Msg-id 17720.1485223667@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?  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
> I thought that checksums went in in part because we thought that there
> was some chance that they'd find bugs in Postgres.

Not really.  AFAICS the only point is to catch storage-system malfeasance.

It's barely possible that checksumming would help detect cases where
we'd written data meant for block A into block B, but I don't rate
that as being significantly more probable than bugs in the checksum
code itself.  Also, if that case did happen, the checksum code might
"detect" it in some sense, but it would be remarkably unhelpful at
identifying the actual cause.
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: [HACKERS] COPY IN/BOTH vs. extended query mode