On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net> writes:
>> - however regardless, if some form of error detection ends up being
>> implemented, it might be nice to actually log corrupted blocks of data
>> along with their previously computed checksums for subsequent analysis
>> in an effort to ascertain if there's an opportunity to improve its
>> implementation based on this more concrete real-world information.
>
> This feature is getting overdesigned, I think. It's already the case
> that we log an error complaining that thus-and-such a page is corrupt.
> Once PG has decided that it won't have anything to do with the page at
> all --- it can't load it into shared buffers, so it won't write it
> either. So the user can go inspect the page at leisure with whatever
> tools seem handy. I don't see a need for more verbose logging.
Agreed!
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com