Re: Online enabling of checksums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: Online enabling of checksums
Date
Msg-id 20180929121959.GN4184@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Online enabling of checksums  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Online enabling of checksums  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greetings,

* Tomas Vondra (tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> While looking at the online checksum verification patch (which I guess
> will get committed before this one), it occurred to me that disabling
> checksums may need to be more elaborate, to protect against someone
> using the stale flag value (instead of simply switching to "off"
> assuming that's fine).
>
> The signals etc. seem good enough for our internal stuff, but what if
> someone uses the flag in a different way? E.g. the online checksum
> verification runs as an independent process (i.e. not a backend) and
> reads the control file to find out if the checksums are enabled or not.
> So if we just switch from "on" to "off" that will break.
>
> Of course, we may also say "Don't disable checksums while online
> verification is running!" but that's not ideal.

I'm not really sure what else we could say here..?  I don't particularly
see an issue with telling people that if they disable checksums while
they're running a tool that's checking the checksums that they're going
to get odd results.

Thanks!

Stephen

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Online verification of checksums
Next
From: David Hedberg
Date:
Subject: Adding pipe support to pg_dump and pg_restore