Re: WAL consistency check facility

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 27 August 2016 at 12:09, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>>> * wal_consistency_mask = 511 /* Enable consistency check mask bit*/
>>>
>>> What does this mean? (No docs)
>>
>> I was using this parameter as a masking integer to indicate the
>> operations(rmgr list) for which we need this feature to be enabled.
>> Since, this could be confusing, I've changed it accordingly so that it
>> accepts a list of rmgrIDs. (suggested by Michael, Amit and Robert)
>
> Why would we want that?
>

It would be easier to test and develop the various modules separately.
As an example, if we develop a new AM which needs WAL facility or
adding WAL capability to an existing system (say Hash Index), we can
just test that module, rather than whole system. I think it can help
us in narrowing down the problem, if we have facility to enable it at
RMGR ID level. Having said that, I think this must have the facility
to enable it for all the RMGR ID's (say ALL) and probably that should
be default.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com