Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

On R, 2005-07-08 at 14:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > I don't think we should care too much about indexes. We can rebuild
> > them...but losing heap sectors means *data loss*.

There might be some merit in idea to disabling WAL/PITR for indexes,
where one can accept some (and possibly a lot) time when recovering.

> If you're so concerned about *data loss* then none of this will be
> acceptable to you at all.  We are talking about going from a system
> that can actually survive torn-page cases to one that can only tell
> you whether you've lost data to such a case.  Arguing about the
> probability with which we can detect the loss seems beside the point.

-- 
Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>