Re: Enabling Checksums
| От | Daniel Farina |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAAZKuFaX_TY-J5kwrR8jicr5NnBLQnAZHuem-HczaG1fc9JP9A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Enabling Checksums (Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Enabling Checksums
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On the testing front, we've seen on-list interest in this feature from > companies like Heroku and Enova, who both have some resources and practice > to help testing too. Heroku can spin up test instances with workloads any > number of ways. Enova can make a Londiste standby with checksums turned on > to hit it with a logical replicated workload, while the master stays > un-checksummed. I was thinking about turning checksums on for all new databases as long as I am able to turn them off easily, per my message prior: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAZKuFZzA+aw8ZL4F_5C8T8ZHRtJo3cM1aJQddGLQCpEz_3-kQ@mail.gmail.com.An unstated assumptionhere was that I could apply the patch to 9.2 with some work. It seems the revitalized interest in the patch has raised a couple of issues on inspection that have yet to be resolved, so before moving I'd prefer to wait for a quiescence in the patch's evolution, as was the case for some time even after review. However, if we want to just hit 9.3dev with a bunch of synthetic traffic, that's probably doable also, and in some ways easier (or at least less risky). -- fdr
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: