Re: Enabling Checksums
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 514D3117.9080201@nasby.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Enabling Checksums (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Enabling Checksums
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/20/13 8:41 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 01:52:58PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> 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. >> >> pg_upgrade can't handle this because the old/new clusters would have the >> same catalog version number and the tablespace directory names would >> conflict. Even if they are not using tablespaces, the old heap/index >> files would not have checksums and therefore would throw an error as >> soon as you accessed them. 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. > > A few more issues with pg_upgrade: if we ever decide to change the > checksum calculation in a later major release, pg_upgrade might not work > because of the checksum change but could still work for users who don't > use checksums. > > Also, while I understand why we have to set the checksum option at > initdb time, it seems we could enable users to turn it off after initdb > --- is there any mechanism for this? > > Also, if a users uses checksums in 9.3, could they initdb without > checksums in 9.4 and use pg_upgrade? As coded, the pg_controldata > checksum settings would not match and pg_upgrade would throw an error, > but it might be possible to allow this, i.e. you could go from checksum > to no checksum initdb clusters, but not from no checksum to checksum. I > am wondering if the patch should reflect this. If the docs don't warn about this, they should, but I don't think it's the responsibility of this patch to deal with thatproblem. The reason I don't believe this patch should deal with it is because that is a known, rather serious, limitationof pg_upgrade. It's something about pg_upgrade that just needs to be fixed, regardless of what patches might makethe situation worse.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: