Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, david@fetter.org, aidan@highrise.ca, stark@mit.edu, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-02-29T15:46:01Z
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 →
-
Wakeup WALWriter as needed for asynchronous commit performance.
- 4de82f7d7c50 9.2.0 cited
On 29.02.2012 17:42, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> Surely it can be done online. You'll just need a third state between off and >> on, where checksums are written but not verified, while the cluster is >> scanned. > > Are you saying you would accept the patch if we had this? I think I would still be uncomfortable with the hacks in the page header. Less so than in the current form - you wouldn't need a flag to indicate whether the page has a valid checksum or not, which would clean it up quite a bit - but still. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com