Re: pg_checksums?

From: b55white <b55white(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_checksums?
Date: 2023-10-31 05:08:21
Message-ID: fcb350eb-c8b1-4f40-a3ff-0fbfa5b26a5f@edison
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general




>
> On Oct 30, 2023 at 7:00 PM, Paul Förster <paul(dot)foerster(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> > On Oct 30, 2023, at 01:56, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >
> > > - Enable checksums on the previous primary.
> > - Start the previous primary to be a standby of the node you failed
> > over to.
>
> That's exactly the reasoning behind my initial idea and question. Patroni does the switchover job for me including catching up on the latest changes, etc.
>
> Seems that opinions vary. Are there any hard facts?
>
>
> The best hard facts are those generated in your environment.
>
>
> It turns out that enabling checksums can take quite some time to complete, i.e. downtime for the application which is hard to do in a 24x7 environment.
>
> Yes. Try it first with a smaller sample.
>
> Cheers
> Paul
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Luca Ferrari 2023-10-31 07:23:02 Re: xmax not zero?
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2023-10-31 04:16:25 Re: Help with a good mental model for estimating PostgreSQL throughput