Re: Enabling Checksums
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-03-18T18:24:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 18 March 2013 17:52, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 05:50:11PM -0700, Greg Smith wrote: >> As long as the feature is off by default, so that people have to >> turn it on to hit the biggest changed code paths, the exposure to >> potential bugs doesn't seem too bad. New WAL data is no fun, but >> it's not like this hasn't happened before. > > With a potential 10-20% overhead, ... for some workloads. > I am unclear who would enable this at initdb time. Anybody that cares a lot about their data. > I assume a user would wait until they suspected corruption to turn it > on, and because it is only initdb-enabled, they would have to > dump/reload their cluster. The open question is whether this is a > usable feature as written, or whether we should wait until 9.4. When two experienced technical users tell us this is important and that they will use it, we should listen. > In fact, this feature is going to need > pg_upgrade changes to detect from pg_controldata that the old/new > clusters have the same checksum setting. I don't see any way they can differ. pg_upgrade and checksums don't mix, in this patch, at least. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services