|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>|
|Cc:||Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 09:16:16PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> It adds an (now mandatory) --action parameter that takes either verify,
> enable or disable as argument.
There are two discussion points which deserve attention here:
1) Do we want to rename pg_verify_checksums to something else, like
pg_checksums. I like a lot if we would do a simple renaming of the
tool, which should be the first step taken.
2) Which kind of interface do we want to use? When I did my own
flavor of pg_checksums, I used an --action switch able to use the
The switch cannot be specified twice (perhaps we could enforce the
last value as other binaries do in the tree, not sure if that's
adapted here). A second type of interface is to use one switch per
action. For both interfaces if no action is specify then the tool
fails. Vote is open.
> This is basically meant as a stop-gap measure in case online activation
> of checksums won't make it for v12, but maybe it is independently
I think that this is independently useful, I got this stuff part of an
upgrade workflow where the user is ready to accept some extra one-time
offline time so as checksums are enabled.
> Things I have not done so far:
> 1. Rename pg_verify_checksums to e.g. pg_checksums as it will no longer
> only verify checksums.
Check. That sounds right to me.
> 2. Rename the scan_* functions (Michael renamed them to operate_file and
> operate_directory but I am not sure it is worth it.
The renaming makes sense, as scan implies only reading while enabling
checksums causes a write.
> 3. Once that patch is in, there would be a way to disable checksums so
> there'd be a case to also change the initdb default to enabled, but that
> required further discussion (and maybe another round of benchmarks).
Perhaps, that's unrelated to this thread though. I am not sure that
all users would be ready to pay the extra cost of checksums enabled by
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2018-12-21 23:34:26||Joins on TID|
|Previous Message||David Rowley||2018-12-21 23:06:45||Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY|