|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|Cc:||Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>|
|Subject:||Re: Gotchas about pg_verify_checksums|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:47:29AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:21:29PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Naming it pg_checksums, with only verification as an option, seems to me to
>> imply future direction for 12 more than what pg_verify_checksums does. I would
>> leave it the way it is, but I don’t have very strong opinions (or any plans on
>> hacking on offline checksum enabling for that matter).
> Okay, I am fine to let such decision to you and Magnus at the end as the
> authors and committers of the thing. I think that I will just hack out
> this tool myself after reusing this code if you don't mind of course..
If anybody on this list is interested, I have extended
pg_verify_checksums into this tool I called pg_checksums which is able
to do a couple of more things like enable checksums, disable checksums,
bypass the final fsync of the data folder with a --no-sync. The core
feature to verify checksums is still around of course.
This allows anybody to control the checksums of a cluster that was shut
down cleanly, which I wanted for some time myself:
That's only compatible with v11, but it can be easily tweaked to be
compatible with past versions. I am of course not proposing to include
that in v11 or above. If anybody wishes to do a proposal based on that
stuff for v12, please feel free to.
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2018-04-16 02:31:50||Re: Gotchas about pg_verify_checksums|
|Previous Message||Yuriy Zhuravlev||2018-04-16 02:26:14||Re: Setting rpath on llvmjit.so?|