| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Date: | 2012-11-11 22:52:20 |
| Message-ID: | 1352674340.3113.50.camel@jdavis-laptop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 21:20 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I don't think so GUC are good for this purpouse, but I don't like
> single purpouse statements too.
>
> what do you think about enhancing ALTER DATABASE statement
>
> some like
>
> ALTER DATABASE name ENABLE CHECKSUMS and ALTER DATABASE name DISABLE CHECKSUMS
Per-database does sound easier than per-table. I'd have to think about
how that would affect shared catalogs though.
For now, I'm leaning toward an offline utility to turn checksums on or
off, called pg_checksums. It could do so lazily (just flip a switch to
"enabling" in pg_control), or it could do so eagerly and turn it into a
fully-protected instance.
For the first patch, it might just be an initdb-time option for
simplicity.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-11 23:24:23 | Re: Inadequate thought about buffer locking during hot standby replay |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-11-11 20:20:23 | Re: Enabling Checksums |