From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Date: | 2012-12-14 20:15:41 |
Message-ID: | 50CB88ED.10303@2ndQuadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/14/12 3:00 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> After some thought, I don't see much value in introducing multiple
> instances of corruption at a time. I would think that the smallest unit
> of corruption would be the hardest to detect, so by introducing many of
> them in one pass makes it easier to detect.
That seems reasonable. It would eliminate a lot of issues with
reproducing a fault too. I can just print the impacted block number
presuming it will show up in a log, and make it possible to override
picking one at random with a command line input.
> Does it make sense to have a separate executable (pg_corrupt) just for
> corrupting the data as a test? Or should it be part of a
> corruption-testing harness (pg_corruptiontester?), that introduces the
> corruption and then verifies that it's properly detected?
Let me see what falls out of the coding, I don't think this part needs
to get nailed down yet. Building a corruption testing harness is going
to involve a lot of creating new clusters and test data to torture.
It's a different style of problem than injecting faults in the first place.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-12-14 20:20:08 | Re: MySQL search query is not executing in Postgres DB |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-12-14 20:00:24 | Re: Enabling Checksums |