Re: [DESIGN] Incremental checksums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Christensen
Subject Re: [DESIGN] Incremental checksums
Date
Msg-id CB94380D-C183-4698-AA66-EDC682D9D186@endpoint.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [DESIGN] Incremental checksums  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [DESIGN] Incremental checksums  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 3:18 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >   - pg_disable_checksums(void) => turn checksums off for a cluster.  Sets the state to "disabled", which means
bg_workerwill not do anything. 
> >
> >   - pg_request_checksum_cycle(void) => if checksums are "enabled", increment the data_checksum_cycle counter and
setthe state to "enabling". 
> >
>
> If the cluster is already enabled for checksums, then what is
> the need for any other action?

You are assuming this is a one-way action.  Some people may decide that checksums end up taking too much overhead or
similar,we should support disabling of this feature; with this proposed patch the disable action is fairly trivial to
handle.

Requesting an explicit checksum cycle would be desirable in the case where you want to proactively verify there is no
clustercorruption to be found. 

David
--
David Christensen
PostgreSQL Team Manager
End Point Corporation
david@endpoint.com
785-727-1171








pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Implementation of global temporary tables?
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: LWLock deadlock and gdb advice