On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 08:56:18AM -0400, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote: > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:02 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > I don't think we want to add a MAC at this point since the MAC for 8k > pages seems unattainable. > > Even without a per-page MAC, a MAC at some level for WAL has its own benefits > such as perfect corruption detection. It could be per-record, per-N-records, > per-checkpoint, or per-file. The current WAL file format already handles > arbitrary gaps so there is significantly more flexibility in adding it vs > pages. I'm not saying it should be a requirement but, unlike pages, I would > not > rule it out just yet as it may not be that complicated.
FYI, the WAL already has a CRC that detects corruption and parially-written records (which are ignored and stop the reading of WAL). -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
