| 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 |
| Message-ID: | 20190219050224.GV15532@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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");
+#endif
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.
--
Michael
| 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 |