On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> The issue about external utilities is a bigger problem than I realized
> at first. Originally, I thought that it was just a matter of code to
> associate the checksum with the data.
>
> However, an external utility will never see a torn page while the system
> is online (after recovery); but it *will* see an inconsistent view of
> the checksum and the data if they are issued in separate write() calls.
> So, the hazard of storing the checksum in a different place is not
> equivalent to the existing hazard of a torn page.
I agree that the hazards are not equivalent, but I'm not sure I agree
that an external utility will never see a torn page while the system
is on-line. We have a bunch of code that essentially forces
full_page_writes=on during a base backup even if it's normally off. I
think that's necessary precisely because neither the 8kB write() nor
the unknown-sized-read used by the external copy program are
guaranteed to be atomic.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
