Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMKRjLgogD=BihP5jnuhmOAbU_y_ZZr5z+xELzXJQQ8xRw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Writing pages during recovery doesn't need WAL. If we crash, we replay
>> using the already generated WAL.
>
> Which is all fine, except when you start making changes that are not
> WAL-logged.  Then, you have the same torn page problem that exists
> when you it in normal running.

Yes, of course. My point is that this is not a blocker to using
checksums, only that some actions cannot occur on the standby but the
replay of changes is not in danger.

page_checksums is an optional parameter, so you can turn it on or off
on the standby as you wish. People frequently have a standby dedicated
to HA and other standbys for queries. So this is all normal and
natural.

page_checksums will default to 'off' in the final patch anyway, in my
understanding.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: LWLOCK_STATS