On 29.02.2012 17:42, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Surely it can be done online. You'll just need a third state between off and
>> on, where checksums are written but not verified, while the cluster is
> Are you saying you would accept the patch if we had this?
I think I would still be uncomfortable with the hacks in the page
header. Less so than in the current form - you wouldn't need a flag to
indicate whether the page has a valid checksum or not, which would clean
it up quite a bit - but still.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Rob Wultsch||Date: 2012-02-29 15:56:10|
|Subject: Re: swapcache-style cache?|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2012-02-29 15:42:17|
|Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2|