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

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] wal_checksum = on (default) | off
Date: 2007-01-06 21:30:08
Message-ID: 200701062130.l06LU8928517@momjian.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Simon Riggs wrote:
> > 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.

Are there performance numbers to justify the option? We don't give
people options unless there is real value to it.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2007-01-06 21:36:06 Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-01-06 21:29:02 Re: 8.3 pending patch queue

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2007-01-06 21:36:06 Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-01-06 21:26:43 Re: [PATCHES] [Fwd: Index Advisor]