Hi, On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 09:57:32PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 14 Aug 2026, at 21:36, Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for the report and the patch! > > I am not 100% happy with the shape of the patch, but I couldn't come > > up with a better solution even after staring at it for a long time, > > and I think it is at least correct and good enough. But maybe somebody > > has a better idea for solving this problem. > > Thanks! I wasn't able to come up with a mor elegant solution either when > staring at it but I'll take another look at it together with the other fixes > staged. I had a look and I wonder if the boolean could miss an on->off->on series of changes. checksums_on_at_start would remain true in that case. Once checksums are enabled again, we'd resume verification even though the final checkpoint may still be running. Maybe tracking a checksum transition generation/LSN would make this easier to reason about? Or am I missing something preventing this case? Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
