Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMLPdODfPNMCFcHGG_t7TiMc-2pZocjoRCZMdcDF0Ya1vA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> wrote:

> Not an expert here, but after reading through the patch quickly, I
> don't see anything that changes the torn-page problem though, right?
>
> Hint bits aren't wal-logged, and FPW isn't forced on the hint-bit-only
> dirty, right?

Checksums merely detect a problem, whereas FPWs correct a problem if
it happens, but only in crash situations.

So this does nothing to remove the need for FPWs, though checksum
detection could be used for double write buffers also.

Checksums work even when there is no crash, so if your disk goes bad
and corrupts data then you'll know about it as soon as it happens.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2