Re: Checksums, state of play
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Checksums, state of play |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+U5nMJGiidfiWAy33YkpQHNGsssbEjPy=-a-2B9oqsqU1vQgg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Checksums, state of play (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Checksums, state of play
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> Options >> >> (1) Recovery ignores checksums until db in consistent state >> >> (2) Recovery ignores checksums until all databases are enabled, when >> we set flag in pg_control >> >> (3) Recovery checks blocks marked as having a checksum, no matter the >> overall state > > How about combining #1 and #3? If the database isn't consistent yet > (and thus we can't look at pg_database) then we rely on the blocks > themselves to tell us whether they have checksums. Once we reach > consistency we can do better. We can change state then, but to what? We don't have a relcache. Maybe that puts us back at Square #1. Will think -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: