| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
| Date: | 2007-01-04 15:56:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1167926200.20749.144.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 10:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > In this thread, I outlined an idea for reducing cost of WAL CRC checking
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-10/msg01299.php
> > wal_checksum = on (default) | off
>
> This still seems awfully dangerous to me.
Understood.
> > Recovery can occur with/without same setting of wal_checksum, to avoid
> > complications from crashes immediately after turning GUC on.
>
> Surely not. Otherwise even the "on" setting is not really a defense.
Only when the CRC is exactly zero, which happens very very rarely.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-04 16:09:59 | Re: wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
| Previous Message | Mario Weilguni | 2007-01-04 15:41:36 | Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-04 16:09:59 | Re: wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-04 15:00:56 | Re: wal_checksum = on (default) | off |