Re: Online enabling of checksums

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Subject: Re: Online enabling of checksums
Date: 2018-02-24 02:07:28
Message-ID: 54073cf2-e2b3-86cb-ef74-efa304b5e93a@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 02/24/2018 01:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> I would prefer that yes. But having to re-read 9TB is still significantly
>> better than not being able to turn on checksums at all (state today). And
>> adding a catalog column for it will carry the cost of the migration
>> *forever*, both for clusters that never have checksums and those that had it
>> from the beginning.
>>
>> Accepting that the process will start over (but only read, not re-write, the
>> blocks that have already been processed) in case of a crash does
>> significantly simplify the process, and reduce the long-term cost of it in
>> the form of entries in the catalogs. Since this is a on-time operation (or
>> for many people, a zero-time operation), paying that cost that one time is
>> probably better than paying a much smaller cost but constantly.
>
> That's not totally illogical, but to be honest I'm kinda surprised
> that you're approaching it that way. I would have thought that
> relchecksums and datchecksums columns would have been a sort of
> automatic design choice for this feature. The thing to keep in mind
> is that nobody's going to notice the overhead of adding those columns
> in practice, but someone will surely notice the pain that comes from
> having to restart the whole operation. You're talking about trading
> an effectively invisible overhead for a very noticeable operational
> problem.
>

I agree having to restart the whole operation after a crash is not
ideal, but I don't see how adding a flag actually solves it. The problem
is the large databases often store most of the data (>80%) in one or two
central tables (think fact tables in star schema, etc.). So if you
crash, it's likely half-way while processing this table, so the whole
table would still have relchecksums=false and would have to be processed
from scratch.

But perhaps you meant something like "position" instead of just a simple
true/false flag?

regards

--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-02-24 02:11:36 Re: Online enabling of checksums
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-02-24 00:34:08 Re: Online enabling of checksums