Re: Protecting against unexpected zero-pages: proposal

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> It does seem like this is kind of part and parcel of adding checksums
> to blocks. It's arguably kind of silly to add checksums to blocks but
> have an commonly produced bitpattern in corruption cases go
> undetected.

Getting back to the checksum debate (and this seems like a
semi-version of the checksum debate), now that we have forks, could we
easily add block checksumming to a fork?  IT would mean writing to 2
files but that shouldn't be a problem, because until the checkpoint is
done (and thus both writes), the full-page-write in WAL is going to
take precedence on recovery.

a.


--
Aidan Van Dyk                                             Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca                                       command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/                                   work like a slave.