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

Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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.

I am assuming this item is dead because no performance results have been
reported.

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

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