Re: Enabling Checksums
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5135391C.2050103@nasby.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Enabling Checksums (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Enabling Checksums
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/4/13 5:20 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 03/05/2013 04:48 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: >> We would still calculate the checksum and print the warning; and then >> pass it through the rest of the header checks. If the header checks >> pass, then it proceeds. If the header checks fail, and if >> zero_damaged_pages is off, then it would still generate an error (as >> today). >> >> So: ignore_checksum_failures = on|off ? > That seems reasonable to me. It would be important to document clearly > in postgresql.conf and on the docs for the option that enabling this > option can launder data corruption, so that blocks that we suspected > were damaged are marked clean on rewrite. So long as that's clearly > documented I'm personally quite comfortable with your suggestion, since > my focus is just making sure I can get a DB back to a fully operational > state as quickly as possible when that's necessary. I replied to this somewhere else in the thread when I over-looked Jeff's original post, so sorry for the noise... :( Would it be better to do checksum_logging_level = <valid elog levels> ? That way someone could set the notification to anythingfrom DEBUG up to PANIC. ISTM the default should be ERROR.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: