Re: [DESIGN] Incremental checksums

From: David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: [DESIGN] Incremental checksums
Date: 2015-07-15 15:43:27
Message-ID: CB94380D-C183-4698-AA66-EDC682D9D186@endpoint.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> On Jul 15, 2015, at 3:18 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > - pg_disable_checksums(void) => turn checksums off for a cluster. Sets the state to "disabled", which means bg_worker will not do anything.
> >
> > - pg_request_checksum_cycle(void) => if checksums are "enabled", increment the data_checksum_cycle counter and set the state to "enabling".
> >
>
> If the cluster is already enabled for checksums, then what is
> the need for any other action?

You are assuming this is a one-way action. Some people may decide that checksums end up taking too much overhead or similar, we should support disabling of this feature; with this proposed patch the disable action is fairly trivial to handle.

Requesting an explicit checksum cycle would be desirable in the case where you want to proactively verify there is no cluster corruption to be found.

David
--
David Christensen
PostgreSQL Team Manager
End Point Corporation
david(at)endpoint(dot)com
785-727-1171

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-07-15 15:44:03 Re: LWLock deadlock and gdb advice
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-07-15 15:41:14 Re: Implementation of global temporary tables?