Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums
Date
Msg-id 1368225676.20500.35.camel@sussancws0025
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 18:32 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> We don't write() WAL except with an immediate sync(), so the chances
> of what you say happening are very low to impossible.

Are you sure? An XLogwrtRqst contains a write and a flush pointer, so I
assume they can be different.

I agree that it sounds unlikely that blocks 100 and 102 would be
written, but not 101. But perhaps that's more likely in systems like ZFS
where the physical blocks might be in very different places.

Regards,Jeff Davis





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: issues with dropped columns in plpgsql code again
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade fails, "mismatch of relation OID" - 9.1.9 to 9.2.4