Re: Online enabling of checksums
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 42CACB0F-7311-42B7-BF34-0FD5E3B42ACF@anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Online enabling of checksums (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Online enabling of checksums
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On February 22, 2018 11:44:17 AM PST, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> >wrote: >In this particular case that would at least phase 1 simplify it because >we'd only need one process instead of worker/launcher. However, if we'd >ever want to parallellize it -- or any other process of the style, like >autovacuum -- you'd still need a launcher+worker combo. So making that >particular scenario simpler might be worthwhile on it's own. Why is that needed? You can just start two bgworkers and process a list of items stored in shared memory. Or even just check,I assume there'd be a catalog flag somewhere, whether a database / table / object of granularity has already been processedand use locking to prevent concurrent access. Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: