Horton

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: 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: 2018-07-31T21:20:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
> On 26 Jul 2018, at 19:35, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On July 26, 2018 10:03:39 AM PDT, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>> wrote:

>> Why can't we do better?
> 
> I don't think it's that hard to do better. IIRC I even outlined something before the freeze. If not, o certainly can (sketch: use procsignal based acknowledgment protocol, using a 64 bit integer. Useful for plenty other things).

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.

cheers ./daniel

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.