On 11/11/2012 05:52 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 21:20 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I don't think so GUC are good for this purpouse, but I don't like
single purpouse statements too.
what do you think about enhancing ALTER DATABASE statement
some like
ALTER DATABASE name ENABLE CHECKSUMS and ALTER DATABASE name DISABLE CHECKSUMS
Per-database does sound easier than per-table. I'd have to think about
how that would affect shared catalogs though.
For now, I'm leaning toward an offline utility to turn checksums on or
off, called pg_checksums. It could do so lazily (just flip a switch to
"enabling" in pg_control), or it could do so eagerly and turn it into a
fully-protected instance.
For the first patch, it might just be an initdb-time option for
simplicity.
+1
I haven't followed this too closely, but I did wonder several days ago
why this wasn't being made an initdb-time decision.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
