Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
Date: 2019-03-21 07:11:42
Message-ID: 20190321071142.GH20192@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 07:59:24AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Please note that we do that in other tools as well and we live fine
> with that as pg_basebackup, pg_rewind just to name two. I am not
> saying that it is not a problem in some cases, but I am saying that
> this is not a problem that this patch should solve. If we were to do
> something about that, it could make sense to make fsync_pgdata()
> smarter so as the control file is flushed last there, or define flush
> strategies there.

Anyway, as this stuff is very useful for upgrade scenarios
a-la-pg_upgrade, for backup validation and as it does not produce
false positives, I would really like to get something committed for
v12 in its simplest form... Are there any recommendations that people
would like to add to the documentation?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-03-21 07:13:55 Re: MSVC Build support with visual studio 2019
Previous Message Haribabu Kommi 2019-03-21 06:25:49 Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority