On 2021-Sep-17, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > That was the first implementation, a few versions of the patch ago. An
> > added benefit of a separate WAL record is that you can carry additional
> > data for validation, such as -- as suggested by Andres -- the CRC of the
> > partial data contained in the message that we're skipping. I didn't
> > implement that, but it should be trivial to add it.
>
> I see. IMO feels a bit counterintuitive to validate a partial record
> that you are ignoring anyway, but I suppose it's still valuable to
> know when the WAL is badly broken. It's not expensive, and it doesn't
> add a ton of complexity, either.
Yeah, we don't have any WAL record history validation other than the
verifying the LSN of the previous record; I suppose in this particular
case you could argue that we shouldn't bother with any validation
either. But it seems safer to do it. It doesn't hurt anything anyway.
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/