Re: Enabling Checksums
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1354611816.28666.7.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Enabling Checksums (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Enabling Checksums
Re: Enabling Checksums Re: Enabling Checksums Re: Enabling Checksums |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 09:56 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > 1. Break out the changes around inCommit flag, since that is just > uncontroversial refactoring. I can do that. That reduces the noise > level in the patch and makes it easier to understand the meaningful > changes. Done by you. > 2. Produce an SGML docs page that describes how this works, what the > limitations and tradeoffs are. "Reliability & the WAL" could use an > extra section2 header called Checksums (wal.sgml). This is essential > for users AND reviewers to ensure everybody has understood this (heck, > I can't remember everything about this either...) Agreed. It looks like it would fit best under the Reliability section, because it's not directly related to WAL. I'll write something up. > 3. I think we need an explicit test of this feature (as you describe > above), rather than manual testing. corruptiontester? I agree, but I'm not 100% sure how to proceed. I'll look at Kevin's tests for SSI and see if I can do something similar, but suggestions are welcome. A few days away, at the earliest. > 4. We need some general performance testing to show whether this is > insane or not. My understanding is that Greg Smith is already working on tests here, so I will wait for his results. > But this looks in good shape for commit otherwise. Great! For now, I rebased the patches against master, and did some very minor cleanup. Regards, Jeff Davis
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: