Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
Date: 2019-01-08 14:09:03
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.21.1901081505010.32421@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> One difference between pg_rewind and pg_checksums is that the latter
> potentially runs for a longer time (or rather a non-trivial amount of
> time, compared to pg_rewind), so the margin of error of another DBA
> saying "oh, that DB is down, let me start it again" might be much
> higher.
>
> The question is how to reliably do this in an acceptable way? Just
> faking a postmaster.pid sounds pretty hackish to me, do you have any
> suggestions here?

Adding a new state to ControlFileData which would prevent it from
starting?

--
Fabien.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dean Rasheed 2019-01-08 14:18:41 Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists
Previous Message David Rowley 2019-01-08 13:44:07 Re: commitfest: When are you assigned patches to review?