Re: [HACKERS] wal_checksum = on (default) | off

On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 22:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> > On Jan 5, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> >> Ok, so when you need CRC's on a replicate (but not on the master) you
>
> > Which sounds to me like a good reason to allow the option in
> > recovery.conf as well...
>
> Actually, I'm not seeing the use-case for a slave having a different
> setting from the master at all?
>
> "My backup server is less reliable than the primary."
>
> "My backup server is more reliable than the primary."
>
> Somehow, neither of these statements seem likely to be uttered by
> a sane DBA ...

If I take a backup of a server and bring it up on a new system, the
blocks in the backup will not have been CRC checked before they go to
disk.

If I take the same server and now stream log records across to it, why
*must* that data be CRC checked, when the original data has not been?

I'm proposing choice, with a safe default. That's all.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com