| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2007-01-04 22:12:03 | Re: Rare corruption of pg_class index |
| Previous Message | Florian Weimer | 2007-01-04 21:48:56 | Re: [HACKERS] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2007-01-04 22:56:55 | Add pg_shdescription to the reindex docs |
| Previous Message | Florian Weimer | 2007-01-04 21:48:56 | Re: [HACKERS] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |