From: Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2019 11:42:49 +0100
Message-ID: <1546339369.6654.1.camel@credativ.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190101023848.GE3243@paquier.xyz>
References: <20181221201616.GD4974@nighthawk.caipicrew.dd-dns.de>
<20181221232834.GB1948@paquier.xyz>
<CABUevEyUaB=Ws=DW-XsBw4ibDXZhQZ8d3WR4485bkmm13kTGVw@mail.gmail.com>
<348aef85-a967-80d2-7bef-7274909475cf@2ndquadrant.com>
<20181227232529.GA3210@paquier.xyz>
<bd6b833b-8250-0810-dfb6-4d8b3e6581b0@2ndquadrant.com>
<CABUevEx_JyTWpSRkSf-Wyk+zuZqiOK=t5amqvD4bCQHyDjUfpQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1546080943.3394.1.camel@credativ.de>
<20190101023848.GE3243@paquier.xyz>
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 01.01.2019, 11:38 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:55:43AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Renaming applications shouldn't be a problem unless they have to be
> > moved from one binary package to another. I assume all packagers ship
> > all client/server binaries in one package, respectively (and not e.g. a
> > dedicated postgresql-11-pg_test_fsync package), this should only be a
> > matter of updating package metadata.
> >
> > In any case, it should be identical to the xlog->wal rename.
>
> I have poked -packagers on the matter and I am seeing no complains, so
> let's move forward with this stuff. From the consensus I am seeing on
> the thread, we have been discussing about the following points:
> 1) Rename pg_verify_checksums to pg_checksums.
> 2) Have separate switches for each action, aka --verify, --enable and
> --disable, or a unified --action switch which can take different
> values.
> 3) Do we want to imply --verify by default if no switch is specified?
>
> About 2), folks who have expressed an opinion are:
> - Multiple switches: Robert, Fabien, Magnus
> - Single --action switch: Michael B, Michael P
I implemented the multiple switches thing in my branch first anyway and
don't mind a lot either way; I think the consensus goes towards multiple
switches.
> About 3), aka --verify implied if no action is specified:
> - In favor: Fabien C, Magnus
> - Against: Michael P
I think I'm in favor as well.
I wonder whether we (or packagers) could then just ship a
pg_verify_checksums -> pg_checksums symlink for compatibility if we/they
want, as the behaviour would stay the same?
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Projektleiter / Senior Berater
Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171
Fax: +49 2166 9901-100
Email: michael.banck@credativ.de
credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080
USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer
Unser Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten unterliegt
folgenden Bestimmungen: https://www.credativ.de/datenschutz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: michael.banck@credativ.de, michael@paquier.xyz, magnus@hagander.net, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
In-Reply-To: <1546339369.6654.1.camel@credativ.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox