| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Date: | 2018-08-01 15:55:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20180801155531.ha2gvj4p544brs35@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-08-01 10:40:24 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> If this was one week before feature freeze, I would agree with you that
> it makes sense to ship it with the restart requirement rather than not
> shipping it at all. But we're several commitfests away from v12, so
> making an effort to having this work without a downtime looks like a
> reasonable requirement to me.
My problem isn't just that I shouldn't think this should be committed
without at least a firm committement to do better, my problem is that I
think the "restart" approach is just using the entirely wrong hammer to
solve the problem at hand. At the very least it's very problematic in
respect to replicas, which need to know about the setting too, and can
have similar problems the restart on the primary is supposed to
prevent.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-01 15:58:21 | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Previous Message | Marco van Eck | 2018-08-01 15:33:39 | Re: Have an encrypted pgpass file |