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 16:35:24
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Oct  1, 2012 at 09:25:43AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 10:43 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >   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?
> > 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.
> I still don't understand why pg_upgrade and page_checksums don't mix.

The heap/index files are copied unmodified from the old cluster, so
there are no checksums on the pages.

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

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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2012-10-01 16:53:47
Subject: Re: embedded list v3
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2012-10-01 16:25:43
Subject: Re: WIP checksums patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group