| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Date: | 2018-07-31 21:20:27 |
| Message-ID: | 405348E1-81A7-4040-9207-7ADBB8A04D11@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 26 Jul 2018, at 19:35, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On July 26, 2018 10:03:39 AM PDT, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>> Why can't we do better?
>
> I don't think it's that hard to do better. IIRC I even outlined something before the freeze. If not, o certainly can (sketch: use procsignal based acknowledgment protocol, using a 64 bit integer. Useful for plenty other things).
Not really arguing for or against, but just to understand the reasoning before
starting hacking. Why do we feel that a restart (intended for safety here) in
this case is a burden on a use-once process? Is it from a usability or
technical point of view? Just want to make sure we are on the same page before
digging in to not hack on this patch in a direction which isn’t what is
requested.
cheers ./daniel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-31 21:23:44 | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-07-31 21:20:10 | Re: Bizarre behavior in libpq's searching of ~/.pgpass |