Re: storing an explicit nonce - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: storing an explicit nonce
Date
Msg-id 20210527151217.GD5646@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: storing an explicit nonce  (Neil Chen <carpenter.nail.cz@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: storing an explicit nonce
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 05:45:21PM +0800, Neil Chen wrote:
> 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.

Well, the code now does write full page images for hint bit changes, so
it should work fine.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: storing an explicit nonce
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: storing an explicit nonce