On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Trying to force those people to use checksums is just masterminding;
>> they've made their own decision that it's not worth bothering with.
>> When something goes wrong, WE still care about distinguishing hardware
>> failure from PostgreSQL failure. Our pride is on the line. But the
>> customer often doesn't. The DBA isn't the same person as the
>> operating system guy, and the operating system guy isn't going to
>> listen to the DBA even if the DBA complains of checksum failures.
>
> We need to invest in corruption detection/verification tools that are
> run on an as-needed basis. They are available to users of every other
> major database system.
+1, but the trick is (a) figuring out exactly what to develop and (b)
finding the time to develop it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
