From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>
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, 1 Jan 2019 11:38:48 +0900
Message-ID: <20190101023848.GE3243@paquier.xyz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1546080943.3394.1.camel@credativ.de>
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>
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
About 3), aka --verify implied if no action is specified:
- In favor: Fabien C, Magnus
- Against: Michael P
If I missed what someone said, please feel free to complete with your
votes here.
--
Michael
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832B) download
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@paquier.xyz, michael.banck@credativ.de, magnus@hagander.net, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
In-Reply-To: <20190101023848.GE3243@paquier.xyz>
* 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