On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 08:56:18AM -0400, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:02 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@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 <bruce@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 +