On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 3:25 AM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote: > > On 11.03.25 11:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Here is an updated patch that works more along those lines. It adds a > > pg_upgrade option --update-checksums, which activates the code to > > rewrite the checksums. You must specify this option if the source and > > target clusters have different checksum settings. > > > > Note that this also works to hypothetically upgrade between future > > different checksum versions (hence "--update-*", not "--enable-*"). > > Also, as the patch is currently written, it is also required to specify > > this option to downgrade from checksums to no-checksums. (It will then > > write a zero into the checksum place, as it would look if you had never > > used checksums.) Also, you can optionally specify this option even if > > the checksum settings are the same, then it will recalculate the > > checksums. Probably not all of this is useful, but perhaps a subset of > > it. Thoughts? > > > > Also, I still don't know what to do about the Windows code path in > > copyFile(). We could just not support this feature on Windows? Or > > maybe the notionally correct thing to do would be to move that code into > > copyFileByRange(). But then we'd need a different default on Windows > > and it would require more documentation. I don't know what to do here > > and I don't have enough context to make a suggestion. But if we don't > > answer this, I don't think we can move ahead with this feature. > > I'm not sensing much enthusiasm for this feature or for working out the > remaining problems, so I'm closing this commitfest entry. >
That's unfortunate; I think there is enthusiasm for the feature, just not enough to overcome the questions around Windows support. Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
