| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de, thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums |
| Date: | 2019-04-03 01:47:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20190403014727.GB3298@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 04:02:59PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Can you explain in more detail how this would work? I thought we came to
> the conclusion (and the documentation seems to indicate so), that you
> should stop all participating instances of a cluster and then enable
> checksums on all of them, which would impose a downtime.
That's what I was pointing out here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190320225924.GC20192@paquier.xyz
I still agree about keeping in the docs safer recommendations, in the
shape of the ones currently present, than what I mentioned on the
other thread.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-04-03 01:49:19 | Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-04-03 01:43:46 | Re: Checksum errors in pg_stat_database |