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

Re: WIP checksums patch

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WIP checksums patch
Date: 2012-10-01 17:14:18
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 1 October 2012 18:04, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?

It's not.

> Are we worried about users who turn the GUC
> on and then expect all of their old data pages to magically be
> protected?

Yes, but as you say, that is a separate consideration.

You are missing large parts of the previous thread, giving various
opinions on what the UI should look like for enabling checksums.

 Simon Riggs         
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2012-10-01 17:14:33
Subject: Re: WIP checksums patch
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2012-10-01 17:13:49
Subject: Re: WIP checksums patch

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