Horton

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-07-31T21:28:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-07-31 23:20:27 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Not really arguing for or against, but just to understand the reasoning before
>> starting hacking.  Why do we feel that a restart (intended for safety here) in
>> this case is a burden on a use-once process?  Is it from a usability or
>> technical point of view?  Just want to make sure we are on the same page before
>> digging in to not hack on this patch in a direction which isn’t what is
>> requested.

> Having, at some arbitrary seeming point in the middle of enabling
> checksums to restart the server makes it harder to use and to schedule.
> The restart is only needed to fix a relatively small issue, and doesn't
> save that much code.

Without taking a position on the merits ... I don't see how you can
claim "it doesn't save that much code" when we don't have a patch to
compare to that doesn't require the restart.  Maybe it will turn out
not to be much code, but we don't know that now.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Online enabling and disabling of data checksums

  2. Deactive flapping checksum isolation tests.

  3. Add support for coordinating record typmods among parallel workers.