> On 11 Apr 2018, at 01:53, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:27:19PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> On 10 Apr 2018, at 06:21, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> 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. > > Torn pages could lead to false positives. So I think that the tool's > assumptions are right.
Right, I misunderstood your initial email but I see what you mean. Yes, you are right and with that +1 on your patch. > I am wondering as well if we should not actually rename the tool? Why > not naming it pg_checksums instead of pg_verify_checksums, and add an > --action switch to it which can be used to work on checksums. The > obvious option to support in v11 is a "verify" mode, but I would imagine > that a "disable" and "enable" modes would be useful as well, and all the > APIs are here already to be able to do an in-place update of the > checksums, and then switch the control file properly. We have no idea > at this stage if a patch to enable checksums while the cluster is online > will be able to make it, still a way to switch checksums while the > cluster is offline is both reliable and easy to implement. Not saying > do to that for v11 of course, I would like to keep the door open for > v12. Naming it pg_checksums, with only verification as an option, seems to me to imply future direction for 12 more than what pg_verify_checksums does. I would leave it the way it is, but I don’t have very strong opinions (or any plans on hacking on offline checksum enabling for that matter). cheers ./daniel