Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?

On 1/23/17 8:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> writes:
>> On 1/23/17 7:47 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> It might be interesting to consider checking them in 'clean' pages in
>>> shared_buffers in a background process, as that, presumably, *would*
>>> detect shared buffers corruption.
>
>> Hmm... that would be interesting. Assuming the necessary functions are
>> exposed it presumably wouldn't be difficult to do that in an extension,
>> as a bgworker.
>
> But we don't maintain the checksum of a page while it sits in shared
> buffers.  Trying to do so would break, eg, concurrent hint-bit updates.

Hrm, I thought the checksum would be valid if the buffer is marked clean?
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)