Re: CRCs
От | ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CRCs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20010113153359.A8821@store.zembu.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: CRCs (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: CRCs
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 12:49:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers) writes: > > ... for systems that cannot provide strict write ordering (e.g., > > most PCs) it would be helpful to be able to detect that the database > > has become corrupted. In Vadim's example above, if the index were to > > contain not only the heap blocks' numbers, but also their CRCs, then > > the corruption could be detected when the index is used. ... > > A row-level CRC might be useful for this, but it would have to be on > the data only (not the tuple commit-status bits). It'd be totally > impractical with a block CRC, I think. ... I almost wrote about an indirect scheme to share the expected block CRC value among all the index entries that need it, but thought it would distract from the correct approach: > Instead of a partial row CRC, we could just as well use some other bit > of identifying information, say the row OID. ... Good. But, wouldn't the TID be more specific? True, it would be pretty unlikely for a block to have an old tuple with the right OID in the same place. Belt-and-braces says check both :-). Either way, the check seems independent of block CRCs. Would this check be simple enough to be safe for 7.1? Nathan Myers ncm@zembu.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: