Re: Online enabling of checksums
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Date: 2018-09-29T12:19:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greetings, * Tomas Vondra (tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > While looking at the online checksum verification patch (which I guess > will get committed before this one), it occurred to me that disabling > checksums may need to be more elaborate, to protect against someone > using the stale flag value (instead of simply switching to "off" > assuming that's fine). > > The signals etc. seem good enough for our internal stuff, but what if > someone uses the flag in a different way? E.g. the online checksum > verification runs as an independent process (i.e. not a backend) and > reads the control file to find out if the checksums are enabled or not. > So if we just switch from "on" to "off" that will break. > > Of course, we may also say "Don't disable checksums while online > verification is running!" but that's not ideal. I'm not really sure what else we could say here..? I don't particularly see an issue with telling people that if they disable checksums while they're running a tool that's checking the checksums that they're going to get odd results. Thanks! Stephen
Commits
-
Online enabling and disabling of data checksums
- f19c0eccae96 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Deactive flapping checksum isolation tests.
- bf75fe47e444 11.0 landed
-
Add support for coordinating record typmods among parallel workers.
- cc5f81366c36 11.0 cited