Re: Online checksums patch - once again

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Online checksums patch - once again
Date: 2020-06-26 12:34:11
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 26 Jun 2020, at 14:12, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:43 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>> Sorry being a bit thick, can you elaborate which case you're thinking about?
>> CREATE TABLE sets the attribute according to the value of data_checksums, and
>> before enabling checksums (and before changing data_checksums to inprogress)
>> the bgworker will update all relhaschecksums from true (if any) to false. Once
>> the state is set to inprogress all new relations will set relhaschecksums to
>> true.
> Oh, I think I was the one who was confused. I guess relhaschecksums
> only really has meaning when we're in the process of enabling
> checksums? So if we're in that state, then the Boolean tells us
> whether a particular relation is done, and otherwise it doesn't
> matter?

That is correct (which is why the name is terrible since it doesn't convey
that at all).

cheers ./daniel

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2020-06-26 12:36:01 ModifyTable overheads in generic plans
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2020-06-26 12:33:04 Re: should libpq also require TLSv1.2 by default?