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

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZQjYcM80S-3_mLuDn77TBT_ptQQoO4W=vpjC8wzcKFEoQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Maybe this is a terminology problem.  I'm taking "false positive" to mean
> "checksum reports a failure, but in fact there is no observable data
> corruption".  Depending on why the false positive occurred, that might
> help alert you to underlying storage problems, but it isn't helping you
> with respect to being able to access your perfectly valid data.

It was a terminology problem. Thank you for the clarification.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?