Re: Online enabling of checksums

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 21:52, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/31/2018 12:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

>>> Thanks for reviewing, I’ve updated the patch with the above mentioned incorrect
>>> linkends as well as fixed the comments you made in a previous review.
>>>
>>> The CF-builder-bot is red, but it’s because it’s trying to apply the already
>>> committed patch which is in the attached datallowconn thread.
>> I think checksumhelper_cost_delay should be checksum_helper_cost_delay.
>>                                                     ^
>> Is "helper" the right word?

IIRC, “helper” was chosen to signal that it’s a single process where “worker”
may be thought of as a process of which there can be many.

> Based on other terminology within the postgresql.conf should it be "checksum_worker_cost_delay”?

Yes, I think it makes sense to rename it “worker” to align better with the
postgres nomenclature. Will fix.

cheers ./daniel