> On 10 Apr 2018, at 06:21, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> 1) The documentation states that the cluster needs to be offline. > Doesn't this imply that the cluster can also be forcibly killed? It > seems to me that the documentation ought to say that the cluster needs > to be shut down cleanly instead. Mentioning that only in the notes of > the documentation would be enough in my opinion. Does it really imply that? Either way, the tool could potentially be useful for debugging a broken cluster so I’m not sure that stating it requires a cleanly shut down server is useful. That being said, you’re absolutely right that the current wording isn’t great, I think “The cluster must be shut down before running..” would be better. > 2) On a cluster where checksums are disabled, aka the control file says > so, then using --force does not result in incorrect blocks to be > reported. This is caused by the presence of the check on > PG_DATA_CHECKSUM_VERSION which does not match for a cluster where > checksums have been disabled. Wouldn't one want to know this > information as well to know what are the portions of the data folder not > treated yet by checksum updates? > 3) Is the force option actually useful? I assume that --force is useful > if one wants to check how checksums are computed if a switch off -> on > is used to see the progress of the operation or to see how much progress > has been done after doing an online switch, which is also what a228cc13 > outlines. Still this requires the cluster to be offline… Thinking more on this, I don’t think the -f option should be in the tool until we have the ability to turn on/off checksums. Since checksums are always on, or always off, -f is at best confusing IMO. The attached patch removes -f, when we can turn checksums on/off we can rethink how -f should behave. cheers ./daniel
remove_force.patch
Description: Binary data
