Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums

From: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
Date: 2019-01-01 10:42:49
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Am Dienstag, den 01.01.2019, 11:38 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:55:43AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Renaming applications shouldn't be a problem unless they have to be
> > moved from one binary package to another. I assume all packagers ship
> > all client/server binaries in one package, respectively (and not e.g. a
> > dedicated postgresql-11-pg_test_fsync package), this should only be a
> > matter of updating package metadata.
> >
> > In any case, it should be identical to the xlog->wal rename.
> I have poked -packagers on the matter and I am seeing no complains, so
> let's move forward with this stuff. From the consensus I am seeing on
> the thread, we have been discussing about the following points:
> 1) Rename pg_verify_checksums to pg_checksums.
> 2) Have separate switches for each action, aka --verify, --enable and
> --disable, or a unified --action switch which can take different
> values.
> 3) Do we want to imply --verify by default if no switch is specified?
> About 2), folks who have expressed an opinion are:
> - Multiple switches: Robert, Fabien, Magnus
> - Single --action switch: Michael B, Michael P

I implemented the multiple switches thing in my branch first anyway and
don't mind a lot either way; I think the consensus goes towards multiple

> About 3), aka --verify implied if no action is specified:
> - In favor: Fabien C, Magnus
> - Against: Michael P

I think I'm in favor as well.

I wonder whether we (or packagers) could then just ship a
pg_verify_checksums -> pg_checksums symlink for compatibility if we/they
want, as the behaviour would stay the same?


Michael Banck
Projektleiter / Senior Berater
Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171
Fax: +49 2166 9901-100
Email: michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)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:

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2019-01-01 11:06:57 Re: Undo logs
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2019-01-01 10:11:06 Re: amcheck verification for GiST