Horton

Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: 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: 2012-01-07T10:55:19Z
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 →

  1. Wakeup WALWriter as needed for asynchronous commit performance.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

> There needs to be a well-documented way of turning it on/off. In particular,
> from off to on.

There is.... in the patch.

The checksum field is optional, as is the parameter.

If page_checksums is on, we write a checksum and it is correct. We
also validate any checksums we see.

If page_checksums is off we clear the checksum on write, so an
incorrect checksum is never written.

So there isn't any problem with there being incorrect checksums on
blocks and you can turn the parameter on and off as often and as
easily as you want. I think it can be USERSET but I wouldn't want to
encourage users to see turning it off as a performance tuning feature.
If the admin turns it on for the server, its on, so its SIGHUP.

Any holes in that I haven't noticed?

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services