Re: Enabling Checksums
Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>
From: Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@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: 2013-03-18T05:26:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On the testing front, we've seen on-list interest in this feature from > companies like Heroku and Enova, who both have some resources and practice > to help testing too. Heroku can spin up test instances with workloads any > number of ways. Enova can make a Londiste standby with checksums turned on > to hit it with a logical replicated workload, while the master stays > un-checksummed. I was thinking about turning checksums on for all new databases as long as I am able to turn them off easily, per my message prior: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAZKuFZzA+aw8ZL4F_5C8T8ZHRtJo3cM1aJQddGLQCpEz_3-kQ@mail.gmail.com. An unstated assumption here was that I could apply the patch to 9.2 with some work. It seems the revitalized interest in the patch has raised a couple of issues on inspection that have yet to be resolved, so before moving I'd prefer to wait for a quiescence in the patch's evolution, as was the case for some time even after review. However, if we want to just hit 9.3dev with a bunch of synthetic traffic, that's probably doable also, and in some ways easier (or at least less risky). -- fdr