| From: | SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiwari(dot)slg01(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster |
| Date: | 2026-05-05 14:24:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAHg+QDfmjk14Ya1Q_SsTsqtj2ui+kL-m=PrgXe72_d4705jppg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 6:46 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
> > While further testing this feature, I realized that
> ProcessSingleRelationFork()
> > unconditionally called log_newpage_buffer() for every page of every
> relation
> > during pg_enable_data_checksums(). This included unlogged relations,
> > which by definition never generate WAL for data changes and are reset to
> their
> > init fork on any recovery.
>
>
> I've tested your patch, and also expanded the test you wrote a little with
> a
> persistence change.
>
> > Further testing this feature, I noticed that the cost_delay and
> cost_limit arguments
> > to pg_enable_data_checksums() in practice have no effect.
>
> Ugh, the API for updating the costs changed between when this code was
> written
> and tested, and when it was committed (and since I was the one committing
> the
> new API I really should've caught that). Thanks for the report and fix!
>
Any thoughts on adding an injection point test to verify the values are
configured correctly?
This can be a different patch, perhaps included in Tomas' tests?
>
> While hacking on your patches I realized that the regexes for finding page
> verification failures in the logs were anchoring at the wrong point, the
> attached 0003 fixes that.
>
> Attached are editorialized versions of the patches, as well as my testfix,
> that
> I'm planning to go ahead with.
>
LGTM. Thanks!
Thanks,
Satya
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2026-05-05 14:32:31 | Re: VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, and REPACK block on other sessions' temp tables |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2026-05-05 13:46:03 | Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster |