Re: [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1168094462.3655.228.camel@silverbirch.site обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off
Re: [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 22:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.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. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: