On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:57:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 01:12:32PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Once you remove the requirement of a running server, we have basically
>> what has been recently implemented with postgres -C for
>> runtime-computed GUCs, because we already go through a read of the
>> control file to be able to print those GUCs with their correct
>> values. This also means that it is already possible to check if a
>> data folder is compatible with a set of binaries with this facility,
>> as any postgres -C command with a runtime GUC would trigger this
>> check. Using any of the existing runtime GUCs may be confusing, but
>> that would work. And I am not really convinced that we have any need
>> to add a specific GUC for this purpose, be it a sort of
>> is_controlfile_valid or controlfile_checksum (CRC32 of the control
>> file).
>
> Thinking more about this one, we can already do that, so I have
> marked the patch as RwF. Perhaps we could just add a GUC, but that
> feels a bit dummy.
Sorry, I missed this thread earlier. You're right, we can just do
something like the following to achieve basically the same result:
postgres -D . -C data_checksums
Unless Vik has any objections, this can probably be marked as Withdrawn.
Perhaps we can look into providing a new option for "postgres" at some
point in the future, but I don't sense a ton of demand at the moment.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
