Greetings, On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 4:52 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > > I am confused why checksums, which are widely used, acceptably require > > wal_log_hints, but there is concern that file encryption, which is > > heavier, cannot acceptably require wal_log_hints. I must be missing > > something. > > > > Why can't checksums also throw away hint bit changes like you want to do > > for file encryption and not require wal_log_hints? > > I'm really confused about it, too. I read the above communication, not sure if my understanding is correct... What we are facing is not only the change of flag such as *pd_flags*, but also others like pointer array changes in btree like Robert said. We don't need them to write a WAL record. I have an immature idea, could we use LSN+blkno+checksum as the nonce when the checksum enabled? And when the checksum disabled, we just use a global counter to generate a number as the fake checksum value... Then we also use LSN+blkno+fake_checksum as the nonce. Is there anything wrong with that? -- There is no royal road to learning. HighGo Software Co.
