Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> It's not really a matter of backstopping the hardware's error detection;
>> if we were trying to do that, we'd keep a CRC for every data page, which
>> we don't. The real reason for the WAL CRCs is as a reliable method of
>> identifying the end of WAL: when the "next record" doesn't checksum you
>> know it's bogus.
> Is the random WAL data really the concern? It seems like a more reliable way
> of dealing with that would be to just accompany every WAL entry with a
> sequential id and stop when the next id isn't the correct one.
We do that, too (the xl_prev links and page header addresses serve that
purpose). But it's not sufficient given that WAL records can span pages
and therefore may be incompletely written.
> The only truly reliable way to handle this would require two fsyncs per
> transaction commit which would be really unfortunate.
How are two fsyncs going to be better than one?
regards, tom lane
