Re: Enabling Checksums
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nM+zxW1Axq3hzCb17fiDBrM8o=NN--aCa+RSPdoBo+w6_A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Enabling Checksums (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Enabling Checksums
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 18 March 2013 17:52, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 05:50:11PM -0700, Greg Smith wrote: >> As long as the feature is off by default, so that people have to >> turn it on to hit the biggest changed code paths, the exposure to >> potential bugs doesn't seem too bad. New WAL data is no fun, but >> it's not like this hasn't happened before. > > With a potential 10-20% overhead, ... for some workloads. > I am unclear who would enable this at initdb time. Anybody that cares a lot about their data. > 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. When two experienced technical users tell us this is important and that they will use it, we should listen. > 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. I don't see any way they can differ. pg_upgrade and checksums don't mix, in this patch, at least. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: