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

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=0SruJHH4POLtMXhEe3=z4ACoGvSZzqOPQUpsEpOWxq0g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Sadly, without having them enabled by default, there's not a huge corpus
> of example cases to draw from.
>
> There have been a few examples already posted about corruption failures
> with PG, but one can't say with certainty that they would have been
> caught sooner if checksums had been enabled.

I don't know how comparable it is to our checksum technology, but
MySQL seems to have some kind of checksums on table data, and you can
find public emails, blogs etc lamenting corrupted databases by
searching Google for the string "InnoDB: uncompressed page, stored
checksum in field1" (that's the start of a longer error message that
includes actual and expected checksums).

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Corey Huinker
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] COPY as a set returning function
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions