At 11:48 PM 8/27/2007, Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 8/27/07, Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@xxxxxxxxx> 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). But how does detecting a corrupted data page gain you any durability? All it means is that the platform underneath screwed up, and you've already *lost* durability. What do you do then?
The benefit I see is you get to change the platform underneath earlier than later.
Whether that's worth it or not I don't know - real world stats/info would be good.
Even my home PATA drives tend to grumble about stuff first before they fail, so it might not be worthwhile doing the extra work.
Regards, Link. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
