On 21.01.2017 19:37, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
Because I see having checksums as, frankly, something we always should
have had (as most other databases do, for good reason...) and because
they will hopefully prevent data loss. I'm willing to give us a fair
bit to minimize the risk of losing data.
To be perfectly blunt, that's just magical thinking. Checksums don't
prevent data loss in any way, shape, or form. In fact, they can *cause*
data loss, or at least make it harder for you to retrieve your data,
in the event of bugs causing false-positive checksum failures.
This is not a new argument, at least to me, and I don't agree with it.
I don't agree also. Yes, statistically it is more likely that checksum
causes data-loss. The IO is greater, therefore the disc has more to do
and breaks faster.
But the same is true for RAID: adding more disk increases the odds of an
So: yes. If you use checksums at a single disc its more likely to cause
problems. But if you managed it right (like ZFS for example) its an
What checksums can do for you, perhaps, is notify you in a reasonably
timely fashion if you've already lost data due to storage-subsystem
problems. But in a pretty high percentage of cases, that fact would
be extremely obvious anyway, because of visible data corruption.
Exactly, and that awareness will allow a user to prevent further data
loss or corruption. Slow corruption over time is a very much known and
accepted real-world case that people do experience, as well as bit
flipping enough for someone to write a not-that-old blog post about
A really nice property of checksums on pages is that they also tell you
what data you *didn't* lose, which can be extremely valuable.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: