Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
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 02:38:48
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
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

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

If I missed what someone said, please feel free to complete with your
votes here.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2019-01-01 02:57:37 Re: rewrite ExecPartitionCheckEmitError
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-01-01 02:24:11 Re: [PATCH] check for ctags utility in make_ctags