RE: Should walsernder check correctness of WAL records? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com
Subject RE: Should walsernder check correctness of WAL records?
Date
Msg-id TYAPR01MB2990ED81C3BBDC5054AAE19BFE310@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should walsernder check correctness of WAL records?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
> CRC calculation would unlikely be the bottleneck here, no?  I would assume
> that the extra lseek() calls needed to look after the record data to be more
> harmful.

Maybe, although I'm not sure lseek() is necessary.  I simply thought walsender was designed to just read and send WAL
withoutcaring about other things for maximal speed. 


> Yep.  However, I would worry much more about the case of cold archives.  In
> my experience, there are higher risks to get a WAL segment corrupted because
> it was on disk and that this disk got corrupted.  Transmission is a one-time
> short operation. Cold archives could stay on disk for weeks before getting
> reused in WAL replay.

Yes, I think cold archives should be checked regularly.  pg_verifybackup and pg_waldump can be used for it, can't they?


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa






pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Add information to rm_redo_error_callback()
Next
From: "tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size