Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Date
Msg-id 6e06c003-2234-71b0-125c-62e4ef4c6945@BlueTreble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 1/23/17 7:47 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> It might be interesting to consider checking them in 'clean' pages in
> shared_buffers in a background process, as that, presumably, *would*
> detect shared buffers corruption.

Hmm... that would be interesting. Assuming the necessary functions are 
exposed it presumably wouldn't be difficult to do that in an extension, 
as a bgworker.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] COPY IN/BOTH vs. extended query mode
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?