Re: storing an explicit nonce
| От | Neil Chen |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: storing an explicit nonce |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA3qoJnFTuc7G9LZST5pqxJeWWD6Lwgi8s1ghqau+AfUEzxDpg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: storing an explicit nonce (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: storing an explicit nonce
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 4:52 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@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.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: