| From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Date: | 2018-04-05 14:55:22 |
| Message-ID: | A3C00ECF-BA87-4393-A519-3252495B932C@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 5 апр. 2018 г., в 14:33, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> написал(а):
>
> This patch version seems fine to me. I'm inclined to mark it RFC.
+1
The patch works fine for me. I've tried different combinations of backend cancelation and the only suspicious thing I found is that you can start multiple workers by cancelling launcher and not cancelling worker. Is it problematic behavior? If we run pg_enable_data_checksums() it checks for existing launcher for a reason, m.b. it should check for worker too?
I think it worth to capitalize WAL in "re-write the page to wal".
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2018-04-05 14:58:13 | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Previous Message | Nikhil Sontakke | 2018-04-05 14:53:11 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |