Re: Enabling Checksums

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Enabling Checksums
Date: 2013-03-18 17:52:58
Message-ID: 20130318175258.GB16641@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 05:50:11PM -0700, Greg Smith wrote:
> As long as the feature is off by default, so that people have to
> turn it on to hit the biggest changed code paths, the exposure to
> potential bugs doesn't seem too bad. New WAL data is no fun, but
> it's not like this hasn't happened before.

With a potential 10-20% overhead, I am unclear who would enable this at
initdb time.

I assume a user would wait until they suspected corruption to turn it
on, and because it is only initdb-enabled, they would have to
dump/reload their cluster. The open question is whether this is a
usable feature as written, or whether we should wait until 9.4.

pg_upgrade can't handle this because the old/new clusters would have the
same catalog version number and the tablespace directory names would
conflict. Even if they are not using tablespaces, the old heap/index
files would not have checksums and therefore would throw an error as
soon as you accessed them. In fact, this feature is going to need
pg_upgrade changes to detect from pg_controldata that the old/new
clusters have the same checksum setting.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2013-03-18 17:56:02 Re: transforms
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-03-18 16:46:43 Re: Materialized view assertion failure in HEAD