From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Checksums, state of play |
Date: | 2012-03-06 17:23:52 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJGiidfiWAy33YkpQHNGsssbEjPy=-a-2B9oqsqU1vQgg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Options
>>
>> (1) Recovery ignores checksums until db in consistent state
>>
>> (2) Recovery ignores checksums until all databases are enabled, when
>> we set flag in pg_control
>>
>> (3) Recovery checks blocks marked as having a checksum, no matter the
>> overall state
>
> How about combining #1 and #3? If the database isn't consistent yet
> (and thus we can't look at pg_database) then we rely on the blocks
> themselves to tell us whether they have checksums. Once we reach
> consistency we can do better.
We can change state then, but to what? We don't have a relcache.
Maybe that puts us back at Square #1. Will think
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-03-06 17:30:28 | Re: WIP: URI connection string support for libpq |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-03-06 17:22:55 | Re: Checksums, state of play |