> On Jun 12, 2018, at 12:16 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Rui DeSousa <rui.desousa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Note that DBCC was never a selling point and neither is fsck; the fact that those tools are needed is a problem. > > DBCC is a selling point. "Parallel consistency check" is a feature > that is only available in SQL Server enterprise edition. That’s not what I recall; it was clearly used against it in sales pitches. Do you really want to trust a database that requires you to DBCC checkdb periodically and fix corruption data pages or do you want to trust Oracle with data? Would you use a filesystem today that required you to fsck after a crash? Sure DBCC has useful features like tracing, etc. — it’s not just for corruption.
