HI Tomas, >> No, at least in the current version. The next version (9.2) will support >> checksums, but it's meant mostly as a protection against failures at the >> I/O level. It might catch some memory issues, but it certainly won't be >> 100% protection. > >Oh, I see - it was bumped to 9.3 and I've missed that. Glad to see there is work going on in the integrity area. > There are unofficial tools (e.g. pg_check @ github, written by me) that > perform some checking when requested, but it's not (and never will be) > automatic. > > Moreover, in many cases it's impossible to identify hw-level corruption, > unless you take the mainframe approach (running the task on multiple > devices and check if they produce the same result). Sure, but checksumming in combination with a structural integrity check should give at least some confidence everything is ok. > (3) use good hw (ECC memory, ...) / test it thoroughly etc. Thats the problem - because of cost constraints I have to deploy postgresql on non-ECC boxes. So I am looking forward to the checksum feature and hope no bit will toogle ;) Thanks again, Clemens -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
