Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 8/27/07, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> that and the lack of evidence that they'd actually gain anything
>
> I find it somewhat ironic that PostgreSQL strives to be fairly
> non-corruptable, yet has no way to detect a corrupted page. The only
> reason for not having CRCs is because it will slow down performance...
> which is exactly opposite of conventional PostgreSQL wisdom (no
> performance trade-off for durability).
Why? I can't say I speak for the developers, but I think the reason is
that data corruption can (with the very rare exception of undetected
programming errors) only be caused by hardware problems.
If you have a "proper" production database server, your memory has error
checking, and your RAID controller has something of the kind as well. If
not you would probably be running the database on a filesystem that has
reliable integrity verification mechanisms.
In the worst case (all the above mechanisms fail), you have backups.
IMHO the problem is covered quite adequately. The operating system and
the hardware cover for the database, as they should; it's _their_ job.
--
Alban Hertroys
alban@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
magproductions b.v.
T: ++31(0)534346874
F: ++31(0)534346876
M:
I: www.magproductions.nl
A: Postbus 416
7500 AK Enschede
// Integrate Your World //
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
