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

On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 11:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "It works most of the time" doesn't exactly satisfy me.
>
> > It seemed safer to allow a very rare error through to the next level of
> > error checking rather than to close the door so tight that recovery
> > would not be possible in a very rare case.
>
> If a DBA is turning checksums off at all, he's already bought into the
> assumption that he's prepared to recover from backups. What you don't
> seem to get here is that this "feature" is pretty darn questionable in
> the first place, and for it to have a side effect of poking a hole in
> the system's reliability even when it's off is more than enough to get
> it rejected outright. It's just a No Sale.

I get it, and I listened. I'm was/am happy to do it the way you
suggested; I was merely explaining that I had considered the issue.

New patch enclosed.

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