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

Re: WIP checksums patch

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WIP checksums patch
Date: 2012-10-01 14:43:00
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 07:09:20PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 17:58 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > This is just a rebased version of the patch by Simon here:
> I just noticed the following note in the docs for this patch:
>   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?
> Also, it looks out of date, because the default in guc.c is set to true.
> I think we should probably default to true, because it's safer and it
> can always be disabled at runtime, but I don't have a strong opinion
> about that.

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.

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-10-01 14:45:38
Subject: Re: pg_malloc() versus malloc(0)
Previous:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2012-10-01 14:37:11
Subject: Re: pg_malloc() versus malloc(0)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group