| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Date: | 2012-12-18 20:52:25 |
| Message-ID: | 1355863945.24766.200.camel@sussancws0025 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 04:06 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> Having some way to nail down if the same block is bad on a
> given standby seems like a useful interface we should offer, and it
> shouldn't take too much work. Ideally you won't find the same
> corruption there. I'd like a way to check the entirety of a standby for
> checksum issues, ideally run right after it becomes current. It seems
> the most likely way to see corruption on one of those is to replicate a
> corrupt block.
Part of the design is that pg_basebackup would verify checksums during
replication, so we should not replicate corrupt blocks (of course,
that's not implemented yet, so it's still a concern for now).
And we can also have ways to do background/offline checksum verification
with a separate utility.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-12-18 21:18:41 | Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1 |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-12-18 20:49:03 | Re: Enabling Checksums |