Re: Online enabling of checksums
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEy5xbhNmf6Ot=WFEBNefvvW+AW_yU2H7n-9dBoYMbdQjg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Online enabling of checksums (Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Online enabling of checksums
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> 5 апр. 2018 г., в 14:33, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> написал(а):
>
> This patch version seems fine to me. I'm inclined to mark it RFC.
+1
The patch works fine for me. I've tried different combinations of backend cancelation and the only suspicious thing I found is that you can start multiple workers by cancelling launcher and not cancelling worker. Is it problematic behavior? If we run pg_enable_data_checksums() it checks for existing launcher for a reason, m.b. it should check for worker too?
I don't think it's a problem in itself -- it will cause pointless work, but not actually cause any poroblems I think (whereas duplicate launchers could cause interesting things to happen).
How did you actually cancel the launcher to end up in this situation?
I think it worth to capitalize WAL in "re-write the page to wal".
In the comment, right? Yeah, easy fix.,
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: