> On 15 Aug 2026, at 10:10, Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I had a look and I wonder if the boolean could miss an on->off->on series of >> changes. > > Good catch, I missed that. I checked that on->off works, but > on->off->on reenables verification and can again see checksum errors. > >> Maybe tracking a checksum transition generation/LSN would make this easier to >> reason about? > > That seems like a good idea, that would allow us to remove the static > variable. v2 attached based on this approach. (the on-off-on issue can > also be fixed in the original static bool version with slightly more > changes, we could also go in that direction, but let's first see what > everyone thinks about this approach)
I prefer this approach, getting rid of the static variable is a neat win. Can we combine the two tests into a single 010_backup.pl to keep cluster inits down? + * If we weren't told not to verify checksums, and if checksums have been While not the fault of this patch, I think we should take this opportunity to remove the double negative and rewrite this to "If we were told to verify checksums". -- Daniel Gustafsson
