On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 15:42 +0100, Markus Wanner wrote: > On 11/09/2012 06:18 AM, Jesper Krogh wrote: > > I would definately stuff our system in state = 2 in your > > description if it was available. > > Hm.. that's an interesting statement. > > What's probably worst when switching from OFF to ON is the VACUUM run > that needs to touch every page (provided you haven't ever turned > checksumming on before). Maybe you want to save that step and still get > the additional safety for newly dirtied pages, right? > > A use case worth supporting?
One problem is telling which pages are protected and which aren't. We can have a couple bits in the header indicating that a checksum is present, but it's a little disappointing to have only a few bits protecting a 16-bit checksum. Also, I think that people will want to have a way to protect their old data somehow. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers