Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 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
Date: 2019-03-26 09:12:05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 02:14:02PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Here is an attempt at improving the Notes.
> Mostly it is a reordering from more important (cluster corruption) to less
> important (if interrupted a restart is needed), some reordering from problem
> to solutions instead of solution/problem/solution, some sentence
> simplification.

So, the ordering of the notes for each paragraph is as follows:
1) Replication issues when mixing different checksum setups across
2) Consistency of the operations if killed.
3) Don't start Postgres while the operation runs.

Your proposal is to switch the order of the paragraphs to 3), 1) and
then 2). Do others have any opinion? I am fine with the current
order of things, still it may make sense to tweaks the docs.

In the paragraph related to replication, the second statement is
switched to be first so as the docs warn first, and then give
recommendations. This part makes sense.

I am not sure that "checksum status" is a correct term. It seems to
me that "same configuration for data checksums as before the tool ran"
or something like that would be more correct.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2019-03-26 09:14:46 Re: pg_malloc0() instead of pg_malloc()+memset()
Previous Message David Rowley 2019-03-26 08:55:01 Re: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction