Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
Date: 2019-03-15 09:58:56
Message-ID: 20190315095524.GA2349@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 09:52:11AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> As I said, that's a big hammer. I'm all for having a better solution. But I
> don't think it's acceptable not to have *any* defense against it, given how
> bad corruption it can lead to.

Hm... It looks that my arguments are not convincing enough. I am not
really convinced that there is any need to make that the default, nor
does it make much sense to embed that stuff directly into pg_checksums
because that's actually just doing an extra step which is equivalent
to calling pg_resetwal, and we know that this tool has the awesome
reputation to cause more harm than anything else. At least I would
like to have an option which allows to support the behavior to *not*
update the system identifier so as the cases I mentioned would be
supported, because then it becomes possible to enable checksums on a
primary with only a failover as long as page copies are not directly
involved and that all operations go through WAL. And that would be
quite nice.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker 2019-03-15 10:06:29 Re: libpq environment variables in the server
Previous Message David Steele 2019-03-15 09:58:26 Re: Re: RE: libpq debug log