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.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
