On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> - however regardless, if some form of error detection ends up being >> implemented, it might be nice to actually log corrupted blocks of data >> along with their previously computed checksums for subsequent analysis >> in an effort to ascertain if there's an opportunity to improve its >> implementation based on this more concrete real-world information. > > This feature is getting overdesigned, I think. It's already the case > that we log an error complaining that thus-and-such a page is corrupt. > Once PG has decided that it won't have anything to do with the page at > all --- it can't load it into shared buffers, so it won't write it > either. So the user can go inspect the page at leisure with whatever > tools seem handy. I don't see a need for more verbose logging.
Agreed! -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
