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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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