Re: Online enabling of checksums
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEyRsAUOTVqQ8PvCAOHd+0foKTwRq34QD3LuGVLa0ydHLg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Online enabling of checksums (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Online enabling of checksums
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:09 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Hi,
I see enable_data_checksums() does this:
if (cost_limit <= 0)
ereport(ERROR,
(errmsg("cost limit must be a positive value")));
Is there a reason not to allow -1 (no limit), just like for vacuum_cost?
Eh. vaccum_cost_limit cannot be set to -1 (1 is the lowest). Neither can vacuum_cost_delay -- it is set to *0* to disable it (which is how the cost_delay parameter is handled here as well).
Are you thinking autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit where -1 means "use vacuum_cost_limit"?
The reason to disallow cost_limit=0 is to avoid divide-by-zero. We could allow -1 and have it mean "use vacuum_cost_limit", but I'm not sure how relevant that really would be in this context?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: