Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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