On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > 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.
It'd be pretty easy to write a pg_checksums utilitys to turn checksums on/off on a database that is shut down, since the hard part of all of this is to change the state while the database is running. But I think even that doesn't need to be part of the first patch. A small patch that gets committed is better than a big one that doesn't. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers