Re: Proposed WAL changes

What do we debate?
I never told that we shouldn't worry about current WAL disability to restart.
And WAL already correctly works in situation of "failing to write a couple of disk
blocks when the system crashes".
My statement at first place that "WAL can't help in the event of disk errors"
was to remind that we should think over how much are we going to guarantee
and by what means in the event our *base* requirements were not answered
(guaranteed -:)). My POV is that two checkpoints increases disk space
requirements for *everyday usage* while buying near nothing because of data
consistency cannot be guaranteed anyway.
On the other hand this is the fastest way to implement WAL restart-ability
- *which is the real problem we have to fix*.

Vadim