From: Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:41:55 +0100
Message-ID: <1552646515.9697.20.camel@credativ.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABUevEzM86WSaap-OZ0Dfou8T07NN1ki5B67xd0u8UeZEpqT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20181221201616.GD4974@nighthawk.caipicrew.dd-dns.de>
<20190311045323.GE1818@paquier.xyz>
<155231347133.16480.11453587097036807558.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
<1552385626.4947.50.camel@credativ.de>
<20190312124403.GM13812@paquier.xyz>
<20190313021621.GP13812@paquier.xyz>
<alpine.DEB.2.21.1903130805330.4059@lancre>
<20190313093150.GE2988@paquier.xyz>
<alpine.DEB.2.21.1903131037240.4059@lancre>
<20190313101021.GF2988@paquier.xyz>
<5217311552474471@myt2-66bcb87429e6.qloud-c.yandex.net>
<CABUevEzM86WSaap-OZ0Dfou8T07NN1ki5B67xd0u8UeZEpqT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 13.03.2019, 12:24 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:54 AM Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org> wrote:
> > One new question from me: how about replication?
> > Case: primary+replica, we shut down primary and enable checksum, and
> > "started streaming WAL from primary" without any issue. I have
> > master with checksums, but replica without.
> > Or cluster with checksums, then disable checksums on primary, but
> > standby think we have checksums.
>
> Enabling or disabling the checksums offline on the master quite
> clearly requires a rebuild of the standby, there is no other way (this
> is one of the reasons for the online enabling in that patch, so I
> still hope we can get that done -- but not for this version).
>
> You would have the same with PITR backups for example.
I'd like to get back to PITR.
I thought about this a bit and actually I think PITR might be fine in
the sense that if you enabled or disabled the cluster after the last
basebackup and then do PITR with the avaiable WAL beyond that, you would
get a working cluster, just with the checksum state the cluster had at
the time of the basebackup. I think that would be entirely accetable, so
long as nothing else breaks?
I made some quick tests and did see no errors, but maybe I am missing
something?
> And especially if you have some tool that does block or segment level
> differential.
This might be the case, but not sure if PostgreSQL core must worry about
it? Obviously the documentation must be made explicit about these kinds
of cases.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Projektleiter / Senior Berater
Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171
Fax: +49 2166 9901-100
Email: michael.banck@credativ.de
credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080
USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer
Unser Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten unterliegt
folgenden Bestimmungen: https://www.credativ.de/datenschutz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: michael.banck@credativ.de, magnus@hagander.net, sk@zsrv.org, michael@paquier.xyz, coelho@cri.ensmp.fr, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
In-Reply-To: <1552646515.9697.20.camel@credativ.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox