Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: WIP checksums patch

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WIP checksums patch
Date: 2012-10-01 16:25:43
Message-ID: 1349108743.15580.44.camel@jdavis (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 10:43 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >   The default is <literal>off</> for backwards compatibility and
> >   to allow upgrade. The recommended setting is <literal>on</> though
> >   this should not be enabled until upgrade is successfully complete
> >   with full set of new backups.
> > 
> > I don't understand what that means -- if they have the page_checksums
> > GUC available, then surely upgrade is complete, right? And what is the
> > backwards-compatibility issue?

> I think this need to clearly state "pg_upgrade", not a dump/restore
> upgrade, which would be fine.  It would be interesting to have
> pg_upgrade change this setting, or tell the user to change it.  I am not
> sure enough people are using pg_upgrade to change a default value.

I still don't understand why pg_upgrade and page_checksums don't mix.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis




In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2012-10-01 16:35:24
Subject: Re: WIP checksums patch
Previous:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2012-10-01 16:18:52
Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group