Re: Online enabling of checksums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: Online enabling of checksums
Date
Msg-id 405348E1-81A7-4040-9207-7ADBB8A04D11@yesql.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Online enabling of checksums  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Online enabling of checksums
List pgsql-hackers
> On 26 Jul 2018, at 19:35, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On July 26, 2018 10:03:39 AM PDT, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>> wrote:

>> Why can't we do better?
>
> I don't think it's that hard to do better. IIRC I even outlined something before the freeze. If not, o certainly can
(sketch:use procsignal based acknowledgment protocol, using a 64 bit integer. Useful for plenty other things). 

Not really arguing for or against, but just to understand the reasoning before
starting hacking.  Why do we feel that a restart (intended for safety here) in
this case is a burden on a use-once process?  Is it from a usability or
technical point of view?  Just want to make sure we are on the same page before
digging in to not hack on this patch in a direction which isn’t what is
requested.

cheers ./daniel

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Bizarre behavior in libpq's searching of ~/.pgpass
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Online enabling of checksums