|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>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 01:37:27PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 15.03.2019, 21:23 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
>> Perhaps having them under --verbose makes more sense?
> Well if we think it is essential in order to tell the user what happened
> in the case of an error, it shouldn't be verbose I guess.
I would still keep them to be honest. I don't know, if others find
the tool too chatty we could always rework that part and tune it.
Please find attached an updated patch set, I have rebased that stuff
on top of my recent commits to refactor the control file updates.
While reviewing, I have found a problem in the docs (forgot a <para>
markup previously), and there was a problem with the parent path fsync
causing an interruption to not return the correct error code, and
actually we should just use durable_rename() in this case (if
--no-sync gets in then pg_mv_file() should be used of course).
I have also been thinking about what we could add in the
documentation, so this version adds a draft to describe the cases
where enabling checksums can lead to corruption when involving
multiple nodes in a cluster and tools doing physical copy of relation
I have not done the --no-sync part yet on purpose, as that will most
likely conflict based on the feedback received for this version..
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2019-03-18 08:16:01||Re: pg_basebackup ignores the existing data directory permissions|
|Previous Message||Stephen Frost||2019-03-18 08:11:29||Re: Online verification of checksums|