Horton

Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, mailings@oopsware.de, thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2019-04-03T01:47:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 04:02:59PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Can you explain in more detail how this would work? I thought we came to
> the conclusion (and the documentation seems to indicate so), that you
> should stop all participating instances of a cluster and then enable
> checksums on all of them, which would impose a downtime.

That's what I was pointing out here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190320225924.GC20192@paquier.xyz

I still agree about keeping in the docs safer recommendations, in the
shape of the ones currently present, than what I mentioned on the
other thread.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Add progress reporting to pg_checksums

  2. Fix thinko when bumping on temporary directories in pg_verify_checksums

  3. Fix thinko when bumping on temporary directories in pg_checksums