On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Andrey Borodin <x4...@yandex-team.ru> > wrote: > >> Hi, Daniel! >> >> > 19 марта 2018 г., в 4:01, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> >> написал(а): >> > >> > Fixed in patch just posted in 84693D0C-772F-45C2-88A1-85B498 >> 3a5...@yesql.se >> > (version 5). Thanks! >> >> >> I've been hacking a bit in neighboring thread. >> And come across one interesting thing. There was a patch on this CF on >> enabling checksums for SLRU. The thing is CLOG is not protected with >> checksums right now. But the bad thing about it is that there's no reserved >> place for checksums in SLRU. >> And this conversion from page without checksum to page with checksum is >> quite impossible online. >> >> If we commit online checksums before SLRU checksums, we will need very >> neat hacks if we decide to protect SLRU eventually. >> >> What do you think about this problem? >> > > One would be adjusted to work with the other, yes. It makes no sense to > now allow online enabling once SLRU protection is in there, and it doesn't > make sense for either of these patches to be blocking the other one for > commit, though it would of course be best to get both included. > Makes no sense to *not* allow it, of course. Meaning yes, that should be handled. We don' t need to convert from "page format with no support for checksums" (pre-11) to "page format with support for checksums" (11+) online. We do need to convert from "page format with support for checksums but no checksums enabled" (11+) to "checksums enabled" online. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
