Re: Online checksums patch - once again

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Daniel Gustafsson
Тема Re: Online checksums patch - once again
Дата
Msg-id 560A2239-5DE2-4B9C-92BC-878C6822F47C@yesql.se
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Online checksums patch - once again  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
> On 11 Feb 2021, at 14:10, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 01:26:18PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 03:25:58PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> A fairly large amount of this complexity comes out of the fact that it
>>> now supports restarting and tracks checksums on a per-table basis. We
>>> skipped this in the original patch for exactly this reason (that's not
>>> to say there isn't a fair amount of complexity even without it, but it
>>> did substantially i increase both the size and the complexity of the
>>> patch), but in the review of that i was specifically asked for having
>>> that added. I personally don't think it's worth that complexity but at
>>> the time that seemed to be a pretty strong argument. So I'm not
>>> entirely sure how to move forward with that...
>>>
>>> is your impression that it would still be too complicated, even without that?
>>
>> I was wondering why this feature has stalled for so long --- now I know.
>> This does highlight the risk of implementing too many additions to a
>> feature. I am working against this dynamic in the cluster file
>> encryption feature I am working on.
>
> Oh, I think another reason this patchset has had problems is related to
> something I mentioned in 2018:
>
>     https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180801163613.GA2267@momjian.us
>
>     This patchset is weird because it is perhaps our first case of trying to
>     change the state of the server while it is running.  We just don't have
>     an established protocol for how to orchestrate that, so we are limping
>     along toward a solution.  Forcing a restart is probably part of that
>     primitive orchestration.  We will probably have similar challenges if we
>     ever allowed Postgres to change its data format on the fly.  These
>     challenges are one reason pg_upgrade only modifies the new cluster,
>     never the old one.
>
> I don't think anyone has done anything wrong --- rather, it is what we
> are _trying_ to do that is complex.

Global state changes in a cluster are complicated, and are unlikely to never
not be.  By writing patches to attempts such state changes we can see which
pieces of infrastructure we're lacking to reduce complexity.  A good example is
the ProcSignalBarrier work that Andres and Robert did, inspired in part by this
patch IIUC.  The more we do, the more we learn.

--
Daniel Gustafsson        https://vmware.com/




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: er@xs4all.nl
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: logical replication seems broken
Следующее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [POC] verifying UTF-8 using SIMD instructions