Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster
Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>
From: Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-07-11T15:53:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Use correct datatype for PID
- 0ca1b3010597 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Improve comments in online checksums code
- cd857dec0e0a 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix checksum state transition during promotion
- 5fee7cab1b87 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix regex searching for page verification failures in tests
- 486b9a9b9eb4 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Apply data-checksum worker throttling parameters
- 9a39056c418c 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Skip WAL for unlogged main fork during online checksum enable
- 2018bd616790 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Revert "Get rid of WALBufMappingLock"
- c13070a27b63 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Get rid of WALBufMappingLock
- bc22dc0e0ddc 18.0 cited
-
Improve grammar of options for command arrays in TAP tests
- ce1b0f9da03e 18.0 cited
Attachments
- v20250711-0001-Online-enabling-and-disabling-of-data-checksums.patch (text/x-patch) patch v20250711-0001
- v20250711-0002-Reviewfixups.patch (text/x-patch) patch v20250711-0002
- v20250711-0003-Rework-handling-of-procsignalbarrier-and-local-cache.patch (text/x-patch) patch v20250711-0003
- v20250711-0004-debug-stuff.patch (text/x-patch) patch v20250711-0004
- test.sh (application/x-shellscript)
Am Samstag, dem 15.03.2025 um 16:50 +0100 schrieb Tomas Vondra: > > I wonder if this "time travel backwards" might be an issue for this > too, > because it might mean we end up picking the wrong > data_checksum_version > from the control file. In any case, if this happens, we don't get to > the > ControlFile->data_checksum_version update a bit further down. And > there's another condition that can skip that. > > > I'll continue investigating this next week, but at this point I'm > quite > confused and would be grateful for any insights ... > Hi, Since i wanted to dig a little deeper in this patch i took the opportunity and rebased it to current master, hopefully not having broken something seriously. Thanks, Bernd