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 11:44:19
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 11:42:49AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 01.01.2019, 11:38 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
>> 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.

Okay, it looks to be the direction to take then.

> 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?

In the v10 dev cycle this part has been discarded for the switch from
pg_xlogdump to pg_waldump. I don't think that's worth bothering this
time either in the build.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikolay Shaplov 2019-01-01 14:23:08 Using vim for developing porstres wiki article
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-01-01 11:41:27 Re: Removing --disable-strong-random from the code