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/
