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 17:04:09
Message-ID: 1349111049.15580.49.camel@jdavis (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 12:35 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The heap/index files are copied unmodified from the old cluster, so
> there are no checksums on the pages.

That's fine though, the patch still reads the old format the same way,
and the pages are treated as though they have no checksum. How is that a
reason for defaulting the GUC to off?

I'm missing something here. Are we worried about users who turn the GUC
on and then expect all of their old data pages to magically be
protected?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis




In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2012-10-01 17:05:57
Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2012-10-01 16:57:34
Subject: Re: BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown

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