Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] wal_checksum = on (default) | off
Date: 2007-01-04 22:03:45
Message-ID: 4007.1167948225@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de> writes:
> Ah, does this mean that each WAL entry gets its own checksum?

Right.

> (I had assumed that PostgreSQLs WAL checksumming was justified by the
> partial write issue.  The wild store could easily occur with a heap
> page, too, and AFAIK, tuples, aren't checksummed.  Which would be an
> interesting option, I guess.)

We've discussed it but there's never been a pressing reason to do it.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2007-01-04 22:12:03
Subject: Re: Rare corruption of pg_class index
Previous:From: Florian WeimerDate: 2007-01-04 21:48:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] wal_checksum = on (default) | off

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2007-01-04 22:56:55
Subject: Add pg_shdescription to the reindex docs
Previous:From: Florian WeimerDate: 2007-01-04 21:48:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] wal_checksum = on (default) | off

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group