Re: WAL consistency check facility

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hm... Right. That was broken. And actually, while the record-level
> flag is useful so as you don't need to rely on checking
> wal_consistency when doing WAL redo, the block-level flag is useful to
> make a distinction between blocks that have to be replayed and the
> ones that are used only for consistency, and both types could be mixed
> in a record. Using it in bimg_info would be fine... Perhaps a better
> name for the flag would be something like BKPIMAGE_APPLY, to mean that
> the FPW needs to be applied at redo. Or BKPIMAGE_IGNORE, to bypass it
> when replaying it. IS_REQUIRED_FOR_REDO is quite confusing.
BKPIMAGE_APPLY seems reasonable.

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com