Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
Date: 2019-02-19 05:02:24
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 07:31:38PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> New patch attached.

- * src/bin/pg_verify_checksums/pg_verify_checksums.c
+ * src/bin/pg_checksums/pg_checksums.c
That's lacking a rename, or this comment is incorrect.

+#if PG_VERSION_NUM >= 100000
+ StaticAssertStmt(sizeof(ControlFileData) <= PG_CONTROL_MAX_SAFE_SIZE,
+ "pg_control is too large for atomic disk writes");
This is compiled with only one version of the control file data, so
you don't need that.

Any reason why we don't refactor updateControlFile() into
controldata_utils.c? This duplicates the code, at the exception of
some details.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-02-19 05:05:01 Re: [Bug Fix] ECPG: could not use set xxx to default statement
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-02-19 04:44:45 Re: Prepared transaction releasing locks before deregistering its GID