On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > Primarily because it's not an anti-corruption tool. I'd be surprised if > there weren't ways to corrupt the page using these corruptions that > aren't detected by it.
It's very hard to assess the risk of missing something that's actually detectable with total confidence, but I think that the check is actually very thorough. > But even if it were, I don't think there's > enough information to do so in the general case. You very well can end > up with pages where subsequent hot pruning has removed a good bit of the > direct evidence of this bug. Sure, but maybe those are cases that can't get any worse anyway. So the question of avoiding making it worse doesn't arise. > But I'm not really sure why the error detection capabilities of matter > much for the principal point I raised, which is how much work we need to > do to not further worsen the corruption. You're right. Just trying to put the risk in context, and to understand the extent of the concern that you have. -- Peter Geoghegan
