On 22.09.2020 17:30, Michael Banck wrote:
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 22.09.2020, 16:26 +0200 schrieb Michael Banck:
Am Mittwoch, den 02.09.2020, 16:50 +0300 schrieb Anastasia Lubennikova:
I've looked through the previous discussion. As far as I got it, most of
the controversy was about online checksums improvements.
The warning about pd_upper inconsistency that you've added is a good
addition. The patch is a bit messy, though, because a huge code block
was shifted.
Will it be different, if you just leave
"if (!PageIsNew(page) && PageGetLSN(page) < startptr)"
block as it was, and add
"else if (PageIsNew(page) && !PageIsZero(page))" ?
Thanks, that does indeed look better as a patch and I think it's fine
as-is for the code as well, I've attached a v2.
Sorry, forgot to add you as reviewer in the proposed commit message,
I've fixed that up now in V3.
Michael
Great. This version looks good to me.
Thank you for answering my questions, I agree, that we can work on them
in separate threads.
So I mark this one as ReadyForCommitter.
The only minor problem is a typo (?) in the proposed commit message.
"If a page is all zero, consider that a checksum failure." It should be
"If a page is NOT all zero...".
--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
