Horton

Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-12-26T17:51:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 6:28 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.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

Commits

  1. Reorganize Notes section in documentation of pg_checksums

  2. Add option -N/--no-sync to pg_checksums

  3. Add options to enable and disable checksums in pg_checksums

  4. Refactor more code logic to update the control file

  5. Rename pg_verify_checksums to pg_checksums

  6. Fix cross-version compatibility checks of pg_verify_checksums

  7. Add routine able to update the control file to src/common/