| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums |
| Date: | 2018-12-26 17:51:12 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYGxzcPH36Md-+iZ6mH_Be-bO1tOuHmd6aUi=cBf8g+rA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 6:28 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> 2) Which kind of interface do we want to use? When I did my own
> flavor of pg_checksums, I used an --action switch able to use the
> following values:
> - enable
> - disable
> - verify
> The switch cannot be specified twice (perhaps we could enforce the
> last value as other binaries do in the tree, not sure if that's
> adapted here). A second type of interface is to use one switch per
> action. For both interfaces if no action is specify then the tool
> fails. Vote is open.
I vote for separate switches. Using the same switch with an argument
seems like it adds typing for no real gain.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-26 17:59:32 | Re: "repliation" as database name |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-12-26 17:48:31 | Re: Shared Memory: How to use SYSV rather than MMAP ? |