| From: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_checksums? |
| Date: | 2023-10-29 15:37:19 |
| Message-ID: | 11f5795f-ae2c-4123-93e7-b42d4a1115d7@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 10/29/23 04:11, Paul Förster wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
>> On Oct 29, 2023, at 02:43, Peter J. Holzer <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at> wrote:
>> I don't think so. AFAIK Replication keeps the data files in sync on a
>> bit-for-bit level and turning on checksums changes the data layout.
>> Running a cluster where one node has checksums and the other doesn't
>> would result in a complete mess.
> I agree with the last sentence. This is why I asked if it is safe to enable checksums on a replica, switch over and then do it again on the ex primary, i.e. now new replica without doing a reinit.
For that to work, the secondary files would have to remain identical to the
primary files. Theoretically that _should_ happen, but it might not, or
whatever command that enables checksums after the fact might have a sanity
check.
As for safety, what do you mean by "safe"?
--
Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter J. Holzer | 2023-10-29 15:38:41 | Re: pg_checksums? |
| Previous Message | pf | 2023-10-29 15:24:20 | Re: Disk wait problem... may not be hardware... |