Re: Online enabling of checksums

Hi,

On 2018-07-31 23:20:27 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 26 Jul 2018, at 19:35, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On July 26, 2018 10:03:39 AM PDT, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> >> Why can't we do better?
> > 
> > I don't think it's that hard to do better. IIRC I even outlined something before the freeze. If not, o certainly can (sketch: use procsignal based acknowledgment protocol, using a 64 bit integer. Useful for plenty other things).
> 
> Not really arguing for or against, but just to understand the reasoning before
> starting hacking.  Why do we feel that a restart (intended for safety here) in
> this case is a burden on a use-once process?  Is it from a usability or
> technical point of view?  Just want to make sure we are on the same page before
> digging in to not hack on this patch in a direction which isn’t what is
> requested.

Having, at some arbitrary seeming point in the middle of enabling
checksums to restart the server makes it harder to use and to schedule.
The restart is only needed to fix a relatively small issue, and doesn't
save that much code.

Greetings,

Andres Freund