Greetings, * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > While looking at the online checksum verification patch (which I guess > will get committed before this one), it occurred to me that disabling > checksums may need to be more elaborate, to protect against someone > using the stale flag value (instead of simply switching to "off" > assuming that's fine). > > The signals etc. seem good enough for our internal stuff, but what if > someone uses the flag in a different way? E.g. the online checksum > verification runs as an independent process (i.e. not a backend) and > reads the control file to find out if the checksums are enabled or not. > So if we just switch from "on" to "off" that will break. > > Of course, we may also say "Don't disable checksums while online > verification is running!" but that's not ideal.
I'm not really sure what else we could say here..? I don't particularly see an issue with telling people that if they disable checksums while they're running a tool that's checking the checksums that they're going to get odd results. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
