Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster
Date: 2025-03-10 15:16:02
Message-ID: 40eb5e02-e715-43d3-a618-f60555bb407c@vondra.me
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

One thing I forgot to mention is the progress reporting only updates
blocks for the FORK_MAIN. It wouldn't be difficult to report blocks for
each fork, but it'd be confusing - the relation counters would remain
the same, but the block counters would change for each fork.

I guess we could report the current_relation/fork, but it seems like an
overkill. The main fork is by far the largest one, so this seems OK.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2025-03-10 15:22:44 Re: table_tuple_lock's snapshot argument
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2025-03-10 15:15:19 Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes