On tis, 2009-12-01 at 17:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > I also like the idea that we don't need to CRC check the line pointers
> > because any corruption there is going to appear immediately. However,
> > the bad news is that we wouldn't find the corruption until we try to
> > access bad data and might crash.
>
> That sounds exactly like the corruption detection system we have now.
> If you think that behavior is acceptable, we can skip this whole
> discussion.
I think one of the motivations for this CRC business was to detect
corruption in the user data. As you say, we already handle corruption
in the metadata.
