> Am 05.06.2015 um 16:56 schrieb Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Igor Neyman <ineyman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> The problem I see with “checksum utility” is that for it to work both compared servers should be “static”: not transactions while it does its job. > > Indeed, and that was brought up before and OP seems to be ignoring it. What magic does MySQL (supposedly) use to compare databases without interfering with updates? > Also, if I remember the Postgres SR bug correctly, this kind of check that Percona provides would not have helped with this kind of bug. The corruption did not occur *during* replication but only if you restarted the slave because transactions were falsely marked as commited or non-commited when the slave came up again. You might have noticed the corruption earlier, though. > One could imagine a built-in feature in PG which depends on using MVCC and having both sides look at the same snapshot. (Which would require repeatable reads.) I actually think this would a need thing to have (for pre-production) test environments, like alpha or beta testing. Jan -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
