Re: Online checksums patch - once again

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Online checksums patch - once again
Date: 2020-09-07 07:17:11
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 02:22:25PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> I unfortunately haven't had time to read the READ ONLY patch so I can't comment
> on how these two patches do things in relation to each other.
> The main synchronization mechanisms are the use of the inprogress mode where
> data checksums are written but not verified, and by waiting for all
> pre-existing non-compatible processes (transactions, temp tables) to disappear
> before enabling.

The CF bot is complaining on this one with a TAP test failure:

t/ .. 1/10
# Failed test 'ensure checksums are on or in progress on standby_1'
# at t/ line 59.
# 'off'
# ~~
# 'ARRAY(0x1d38c10)'
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 10.
t/ .. Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256,
Failed 1/10 subtests

Daniel, could you look at that?

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2020-09-07 07:19:07 Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size
Previous Message Andrey M. Borodin 2020-09-07 07:14:35 Re: Yet another fast GiST build (typo)