Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Fabien COELHO <fabien(dot)coelho(at)mines-paristech(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: 2019-03-29 14:01:14
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> 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.
> Possibly, I cannot say.

I have put more thoughts into this part, and committed the
reorganization as you mainly suggested.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-03-29 14:03:49 Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru
Previous Message Ilaria 2019-03-29 14:01:05 Re: [GSoC 2019] Proposal: Develop Performance Farm Database and Website