Re: Enabling Checksums

Greg Smith wrote:

> In general, what I hope people will be able to do is switch over to 
> their standby server, and then investigate further. I think it's 
> unlikely that people willing to pay for block checksums will only have 
> one server. Having some way to nail down if the same block is bad on a 
> given standby seems like a useful interface we should offer, and it 
> shouldn't take too much work. Ideally you won't find the same 
> corruption there. I'd like a way to check the entirety of a standby for 
> checksum issues, ideally run right after it becomes current. It seems 
> the most likely way to see corruption on one of those is to replicate a 
> corrupt block.
> 
> There is no good way to make the poor soul who has no standby server 
> happy here. You're just choosing between bad alternatives. The first 
> block error is often just that--the first one, to be joined by others 
> soon afterward. My experience at how drives fail says the second error 
> is a lot more likely after you've seen one.

+1 on all of that.

-Kevin