From: | Fabien COELHO <fabien(dot)coelho(at)mines-paristech(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
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: | 2019-03-26 12:41:38 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.1903261235240.20796@lancre |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bonjour Michaël,
>> Here is an attempt at improving the Notes. [...]
>
> So, the ordering of the notes for each paragraph is as follows: 1)
> Replication issues when mixing different checksum setups across nodes.
> 2) Consistency of the operations if killed. 3) Don't start Postgres
> while the operation runs.
>
> Your proposal is to switch the order of the paragraphs to 3), 1) and
> then 2).
Yes. I suggest to emphasize cluster corruption risks by putting them
first.
> Do others have any opinion? I am fine with the current
> order of things, still it may make sense to tweaks the docs.
>
> In the paragraph related to replication, the second statement is
> switched to be first so as the docs warn first, and then give
> recommendations.
Yep.
> This part makes sense.
Yep!
> I am not sure that "checksum status" is a correct term. It seems to
> me that "same configuration for data checksums as before the tool ran"
> or something like that would be more correct.
Possibly, I cannot say.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2019-03-26 12:41:56 | Re: Problems with plan estimates in postgres_fdw |
Previous Message | Lucas Viecelli | 2019-03-26 12:36:10 | Re: warning to publication created and wal_level is not set to logical |