Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Дата
Msg-id CAM3SWZQjYcM80S-3_mLuDn77TBT_ptQQoO4W=vpjC8wzcKFEoQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

It was a terminology problem. Thank you for the clarification.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?