Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYGxzcPH36Md-+iZ6mH_Be-bO1tOuHmd6aUi=cBf8g+rA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 6:28 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> 2) Which kind of interface do we want to use?  When I did my own
> flavor of pg_checksums, I used an --action switch able to use the
> following values:
> - enable
> - disable
> - verify
> The switch cannot be specified twice (perhaps we could enforce the
> last value as other binaries do in the tree, not sure if that's
> adapted here).  A second type of interface is to use one switch per
> action.  For both interfaces if no action is specify then the tool
> fails.  Vote is open.

I vote for separate switches.  Using the same switch with an argument
seems like it adds typing for no real gain.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Shared Memory: How to use SYSV rather than MMAP ?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: "repliation" as database name