At 11:48 PM 8/27/2007, Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 8/27/07, Jonah H. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/27/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
