| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
| Date: | 2005-07-08 18:45:43 |
| Message-ID: | 27450.1120848343@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I don't think we should care too much about indexes. We can rebuild
> them...but losing heap sectors means *data loss*.
If you're so concerned about *data loss* then none of this will be
acceptable to you at all. We are talking about going from a system
that can actually survive torn-page cases to one that can only tell
you whether you've lost data to such a case. Arguing about the
probability with which we can detect the loss seems beside the point.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-08 21:35:43 | Fixing domain input |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-07-08 18:35:15 | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |