Re: Online enabling of checksums
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Date: 2018-02-24T02:11:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi, On 2018-02-24 03:07:28 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > I agree having to restart the whole operation after a crash is not > ideal, but I don't see how adding a flag actually solves it. The problem > is the large databases often store most of the data (>80%) in one or two > central tables (think fact tables in star schema, etc.). So if you > crash, it's likely half-way while processing this table, so the whole > table would still have relchecksums=false and would have to be processed > from scratch. I don't think it's quite as large a problem as you make it out to be. Even in those cases you'll usually have indexes, toast tables and so forth. > But perhaps you meant something like "position" instead of just a simple > true/false flag? I think that'd incur a much larger complexity cost. Greetings, Andres Freund
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