At 11:48 PM 8/27/2007, Trevor Talbot wrote:
>On 8/27/07, Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/27/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > that and the lack of evidence that they'd actually gain anything
> >
> > I find it somewhat ironic that PostgreSQL strives to be fairly
> > non-corruptable, yet has no way to detect a corrupted page. The only
> > reason for not having CRCs is because it will slow down performance...
> > which is exactly opposite of conventional PostgreSQL wisdom (no
> > performance trade-off for durability).
>
>But how does detecting a corrupted data page gain you any durability?
>All it means is that the platform underneath screwed up, and you've
>already *lost* durability. What do you do then?
The benefit I see is you get to change the platform underneath
earlier than later.
Whether that's worth it or not I don't know - real world stats/info
would be good.
Even my home PATA drives tend to grumble about stuff first before
they fail, so it might not be worthwhile doing the extra work.
Regards,
Link.
