public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Cc: SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <[email protected]>
Cc: Ayush Tiwari <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Bernd Helmle <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Banck <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster
Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 22:27:20 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAHg+QDfRk4-S7DMmdbXJnQ-xF=sUpMAKuh8b83ObLqYVKx5QLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAHg+QDfS0Ckw2HT-TWkdvB1pq9rrFzm1Pk_AUwuFL+Er23ZOFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAJTYsWUq96LR=DSh0jcbZLwJekT06Z2PGND6GYaS0SANFC9E7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAHg+QDeGrpZbNZdLjd_T4b43xKEEXZN0HGhkFm-1bkBdyzK7AQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>



On 5/29/26 22:08, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 28 May 2026, at 13:51, Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/28/26 13:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>>> On 26 May 2026, at 20:12, Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suppose this means we should not be updating the checksum state
>>>> without emitting the barrier? I think all other places do that.
>>>
>>> Good catch, it's indeed a bug, any state change must emit a procsignalbarrier
>>> to maintain cluster consistency.  I ended up writing a test for this very case
>>> as well.
>>
>> Good.
> 
> I've pushed this now, along with your other findings, ahead of the beta1
> deadline, buildfarm seems happy so far.
> 

Thanks!

>>>> I still don't understand why this needs DELAY_CHKPT_START ...
>>>
>>> Having stared at this for some time, and going over old threads, I think this
>>> is a mistake.  AFAICT though it cannot cause any error, so I'd lean towards
>>> erring on the safe side by leaving as is and looking at removing in 20.  What
>>> do you think?
>>>
>>
>> I'd probably try to fix this for 19, otherwise it may be confusing
>> people looking at the code in the future. We're still months from 19
>> getting released. Ofc, maybe I'm underestimating the risk.
> 
> You're probably right.  Once beta1 is out I'll work on getting this fixed.
> 

+1


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra

view thread (60+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox