| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, 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 15:45:49 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.1901081644220.32421@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> But then you have to make sure the control flag gets cleared in any
>>> case pg_verify_checksums crashes somehow or gets SIGKILL'ed ...
>>
>> The usual approach is a restart with some --force option?
>>
>>> Setting the checksum flag is done after having finished all blocks, so
>>> there is no problem.
>>
>> There is also a problem if the db is started while the checksum is
>> being enabled.
>
> What i mean is that interrupting pg_verify_checksums won't leave
> pg_control in a state where starting the cluster won't work without any
> further interaction.
Yep, I understood that, and agree that a way out is needed, hence the
--force option suggestion.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2019-01-08 17:06:27 | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2019-01-08 15:41:35 | Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums |