Re: Enabling Checksums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Enabling Checksums
Date
Msg-id 1363156384.29942.8.camel@jdavis-laptop
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Enabling Checksums  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: Enabling Checksums  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Re: Enabling Checksums  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 13:45 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I need to do another self-review after these changes and some more
> extensive testing, so I might have missed a couple things.

New patch attached.

Aside from rebasing, I also found a problem with temp tables. At first I
was going to fix it by continuing to exclude temp tables from checksums
entirely. But then I re-thought it and decided to just checksum temp
tables, too.

Excluding temp tables from checksums means more special cases in the
code, and more documentation. After thinking about it, there is no huge
benefit to excluding temp tables:
  * small temp tables will be in memory only, and never checksummed
  * no WAL for temp tables, so the biggest cost of checksums is
non-existent
  * there are good reasons to want to checksum temp tables, because they
can be used to stage data for permanent tables

However, I'm willing to be convinced to exclude temp tables again.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]