| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Date: | 2018-07-31 21:11:02 |
| Message-ID: | 541FA20F-D8A0-48D3-B301-AAFEB21CF04E@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 31 Jul 2018, at 21:52, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 07/31/2018 12:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Thanks for reviewing, I’ve updated the patch with the above mentioned incorrect
>>> linkends as well as fixed the comments you made in a previous review.
>>>
>>> The CF-builder-bot is red, but it’s because it’s trying to apply the already
>>> committed patch which is in the attached datallowconn thread.
>> I think checksumhelper_cost_delay should be checksum_helper_cost_delay.
>> ^
>> Is "helper" the right word?
IIRC, “helper” was chosen to signal that it’s a single process where “worker”
may be thought of as a process of which there can be many.
> Based on other terminology within the postgresql.conf should it be "checksum_worker_cost_delay”?
Yes, I think it makes sense to rename it “worker” to align better with the
postgres nomenclature. Will fix.
cheers ./daniel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-07-31 21:20:10 | Re: Bizarre behavior in libpq's searching of ~/.pgpass |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-07-31 21:10:28 | Re: Alter index rename concurrently to |