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

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZSS5ir_cqSHemAnhfOf3Z9SDq-G6jEHC2OBs-2avajV7Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: recursive json_populate_record()
Next
From: Corey Huinker
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] COPY as a set returning function